What about Delayed Blast Fireball? Ivisi-wiz casts it and places it somewhere, delayed 5 rounds. I would think he stays invisible immediately after the initial casting.
Then: A) It goes off with no-one in the blast range- stays invisible.
B) It goes off hurting foes that were already in the blast area- lose invisibility now 5 rounds after the spell?
C)No-one was initially in the blast range, but a foe moves into the area after the cast, but before the blast- lose invisibility or not? (For those who have said someone moving into flaming sphere is their own problem- what if the wizard knew they were moving toward the area when he placed the DBF where he did, in effect, aiming it at them?)
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....
But that was due to YOUR action, not the mage's. Similarly, with the flaming sphere vs. summon monster comparison, the monster in question doesn't do damage automatically upon entering the enemy's square, rather it has the chance to do damage as a result of ITS action, not the mage's. Flaming sphere is not as obviously a direct attack as fireball or disintegrate, but I don't think the "rolling" mechanic should serve as an excuse to do direct damage and maintain invisibility. I do seem to recall reading somewhere about the use of flaming sphere with invisibility, but I can't remember where.
One thing to consider is that casting the spell wouldn't necessarily immediately end invisibility unless you use it to directly hurt someone that round. If your DM's reasonable, and the enemies are relatively stupid or afraid of fire, a giant flaming ball can help with battlefield control.
Zo
Similarly, with the flaming sphere vs. summon monster comparison, the monster in question doesn't do damage automatically upon entering the enemy's square, rather it has the chance to do damage as a result of ITS action, not the mage's.
Check my question about summon swarm. That is still a summoned creature, and it deals damage automatically just for being in the same square. It's an organic flaming sphere.
If I cast invisibility and eat my neighbors pie, does that break invisibility (assuming i don't make a mess of myself)?
...just sayin.. I like pie.. and the likelihood of not making a mess of myself is 0, fyi lol
Did you intend to eat your neighbor's pie? Or did you slip and fall headfirst into it?
Similarly, with the flaming sphere vs. summon monster comparison, the monster in question doesn't do damage automatically upon entering the enemy's square, rather it has the chance to do damage as a result of ITS action, not the mage's.Check my question about summon swarm. That is still a summoned creature, and it deals damage automatically just for being in the same square. It's an organic flaming sphere.
Yeah, that's a thinker. I don't want to get into a "no true scotsman" kind of position. I guess if one was so inclined one could argue that the automatic damage is the swarm's attack and still indirect on the part of the mage, but at the end of the day I'd entrust the decision to my DM.
Zo
Did you intend to eat your neighbor's pie? Or did you slip and fall headfirst into it?
Let's say I saw the pie and thought it looked delicious, picked it up piece by piece, and it fell into my mouth ;)
Well, according to the Zurai Principle, you're okay. If you can come up with any justification, no matter how bizarre or petty, your invisibility remains intact. After all, the pie fell into your mouth. Clearly, it was the pie's fault.
Well, according to the Zurai Principle, you're okay. If you can come up with any justification, no matter how bizarre or petty, your invisibility remains intact. After all, the pie fell into your mouth. Clearly, it was the pie's fault.
Speaking of petty...
Actually the proper response is...
Bite me.
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...
One point worth considering. See PF #25 (Bastards of Erebus), page 46:
I hadn't actually considered this edge case, but...
I think the easiest way to interpret it is :
Any spell that DIRECTLY affects the target and does damage ends the invisibility.
Any spell that indirectly affects the target, or affects them as a side effect, does not end the invisibility.
So... Casting Soften Earth & Stone while someone is standing on a stone archway (on the arch, obviously) would kill them (just as cutting the rope on a bridge) but the spell is not directly targeting them. Same with a summon swarm, you summon the swarm, then the swarm attacks whatever is in it's area. The spell didn't damage the person, the summoned swarm did.
Flaming Sphere would depend on how the GM interpreted the spell. Since it has a save for no damage, I would personally interpret that spell acts more like a summon, it's just a summon of fire that moves on command. The fact that the fire moves into your five foot space, but doesn't automatically damage you, to me means it's not a direct attack, more like you are creating a dangerous environment (like grease, that spell on a stairwell would cause a reflex save to avoid damage, but wouldn't be directly targeted at the person).
So...
I would, personally, treat Flaming Sphere as grease and Soften Earth & Stone and treat it as creating a moving 'hazardous environment' that has to be avoided.
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.
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.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather
than affecting things that are already present.
Flaming Sphere is an Effect (read the spell) that allows you to control the object created, as happens with summon monster, which is also an Effect. So yes, flaming sphere shouldn't break Invisibility UNLESS you summon the sphere inside a foe space (i think that it isnt possible anyway). There's isn't much difference between having an elemental attack a foe using 3 attacks and burning a foe with the sphere.
A spell that burns a whole forest will never break invisibility, because almost everything in a forest is an unattended object, unless you aim for the animals.
Any Area spell that has a Target line or makes you choose the targets targets creatures, if the wizard choose the targets it isn't a indirect attack and will break invisibility.
Any area or effect spell that includes a foe (note that it says includes, not targets or affects) will break the spell. It is up to the DM to say if it speaks about the moment of casting the spell, or the moment when it harms the the foe. The second option would make the indirect attack rule senseless imo. So if there is a foe in the area or effect when the spell is cast invisibility should break inmediately.
Note that it is all about the caster perceptions and the invisibility spell, not about the foe's perceptions, the act of harming the foe doesn't break the spell on the caster, the act of attacking him/targeting him/including him in Area or Effect does.
A delayed blast fireball is an Area spell, but the area isn't set until it explodes (unless it explodes immmediately), as the bead may move. However it creates a visible glowing bead (clearly visible when it is on the ground, as no Perception check is required) that goes from the caster to the ground. It doesn't break invisibility, but the position from where the spell was cast should be known (DMs option), unless the foes are surprised or flat-footed.
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 itNot 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?
When I say defined area I mean written just like FS which calls our a 5 ft diameter. A FS has an area of affect of 5 feat. I dont mean area of affect in the sense of the spells that damage multiple opponents, and invisibility alludes to that interpretation also. I don't know how many other spells have an effect with a specific measurement so maybe the invisibility spell is worded badly.
You got me with the trap one. I would have definitely included that as a direct hostile action as opposed to an indirect one which is not suppose to cancel the spell.
Here is how I see it. If you cast a spell, and the nature of the spell causes the opponent to be attacked such as a fireball thrown directly at someone the invis should cancel. If you fireball a bridge the attack was on the bridge. If the bridge happens to give way causing enemies to die it would not trigger the spell since their death was caused by a secondary affect of the spell. I think summoning monsters works along the same line. You summoned the monster. At the point the spell is completed. The monster attacks. I think you have to be potentially damaged by the spell itself, not a secondary result of the spell for invis to drop.
If that is hard to understand let me know, and I will try to rewrite it later.
Here is how I see it. If you cast a spell, and the nature of the spell causes the opponent to be attacked such as a fireball thrown directly at someone the invis should cancel. If you fireball a bridge the attack was on the bridge. If the bridge happens to give way causing enemies to die it would not trigger the spell since their death was caused by a secondary affect of the spell. I think summoning monsters works along the same line. You summoned the monster. At the point the spell is completed. The monster attacks. I think you have to be potentially damaged by the spell itself, not a secondary result of the spell for invis to drop.
I agree. I just consider an attack from a flaming sphere to be a secondary result of the spell. It's essentially just a summon spell in the evocation school.
The primary result of the spell: you summon/create a big burning ball of fire that actually sets fire to things (unlike, say, fireball).
The secondary result of the spell: you can direct your summoned/created ball of fire to move around using your actions and it might even do damage to something (but probably not, being one of the very few spells in existence to have a Reflex None save).
That would be your problem with the spell and understanding how directing it is an attack.
-James
Or maybe it's your problem?
Why are we still arguing and not simply rewriting this rule? Guys, most of us are 3.5 vets, we should be used to this by now.
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.
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.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather
than affecting things that are already present.
Flaming Sphere is an Effect (read the spell) that allows you to control the object created, as happens with summon monster, which is also an Effect. So yes, flaming sphere shouldn't break Invisibility UNLESS you summon the sphere inside a foe space (i think that it isnt possible anyway). There's isn't much difference between having an elemental attack a foe using 3 attacks and burning a foe with the sphere.
A spell that burns a whole forest will never break invisibility, because almost everything in a forest is an unattended object, unless you aim for the animals.
Any Area spell that has a Target line or makes you choose the targets targets creatures, if the wizard choose the targets it isn't a indirect attack and will break invisibility.
Any area or effect spell that includes a foe (note that it says includes, not targets or affects) will break the spell. It is up to the DM to say if it speaks about the moment of casting the spell, or the moment when it harms the the foe. The second option would make the indirect attack rule senseless imo. So if there is a foe in the area or effect when the spell is cast invisibility should break inmediately.
Note that it is all about the caster perceptions and the invisibility spell, not about the foe's perceptions, the act of harming the foe doesn't break the spell on the caster, the act of attacking him/targeting him/including him in Area or Effect does.
A delayed blast fireball is an Area spell, but the area isn't set until it explodes (unless it explodes immmediately), as the bead may move. However it creates a visible glowing bead (clearly visible when it is on the ground, as no Perception check is required) that goes from the caster to the ground. It doesn't break invisibility, but the position from where the spell was cast should be known (DMs option), unless the foes are surprised or flat-footed.
Simply wanted to repeat this because it seems this guy was ignored, along with the actual wording of the spell. Reading the whole spell, in my mind, makes this whole thread pointless.
Why are we still arguing and not simply rewriting this rule? Guys, most of us are 3.5 vets, we should be used to this by now.
I enjoy debating, and I think this is the first time I have disagreed with Zurai, ever.
I must bring him back to the path or something like that. :)
Honestly, this whole issue isn't that big a deal to me. I'm pretty sure the wording of invisibility is intentionally left a little vague. It's one of those "DM's discretion" areas, like a lot of other Illusion spells. I'll be honest that at least a part of my stance on allowing flaming sphere to work with invisibility is how godawful flaming sphere actually is. It got improved a little in Pathfinder (it used to deal 2d6 damage, IIRC, and it's now 3d6), but it's still a Reflex None save and still requires the caster to use his own move action to force a single creature to make that save. There's far worse things an invisible spellcaster could be doing to you even with a second level slot.
Honestly, this whole issue isn't that big a deal to me. I'm pretty sure the wording of invisibility is intentionally left a little vague. It's one of those "DM's discretion" areas, like a lot of other Illusion spells.
+1
One point worth considering. See PF #25 (Bastards of Erebus), page 46: ** spoiler omitted ** Had I not read this I would have considered spiritual weap a nono for invis, but I guess it is lumped with other summoning spells. Still doesn't clarify much about flaming sphere, but seemed worth mentioning.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...
On the contrary, it greatly clarifies it. Unless we are going to assume the person who wrote PF #25 is not playing by the rules.
Honestly, this whole issue isn't that big a deal to me. I'm pretty sure the wording of invisibility is intentionally left a little vague. It's one of those "DM's discretion" areas, like a lot of other Illusion spells. I'll be honest that at least a part of my stance on allowing flaming sphere to work with invisibility is how godawful flaming sphere actually is. It got improved a little in Pathfinder (it used to deal 2d6 damage, IIRC, and it's now 3d6), but it's still a Reflex None save and still requires the caster to use his own move action to force a single creature to make that save. There's far worse things an invisible spellcaster could be doing to you even with a second level slot.
On this we can agree. The rules are iffy, which is both a shame and a boon. Being unable to answer the OP's question with authority is unfortunate to be sure, but sometimes there needs to be wiggle room for DMs. Obviously any DM can rule as he likes, but if you're playing with friends you don't want to be the guy who rules against his friends if they can't see his side.
Anyway though, I agree that Flaming Sphere is a poor spell or at least that it doesn't have usefulness beyond utility (setting stuff on fire) or a moderate combat spell at 3rd level but not beyond. Allowing it isn't going to power boost a wizard by any stretch, and I'd rule this same way at my table.
Spiritual weapon too, probably, now that someone mentions it.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. This was a tricky call, but one that can be seen from both sides. In the end, my DM didn't have any problems with the invisibility staying active when the sphere rolls into an enemy.
Now, can I ask yet another question?
If you were to cast pyrotechnics on the sphere...
1. Is the flame from the flaming sphere magical? Does it go away when cast?
2. Does the invisibility end once you cast pyrotechnics on the sphere?
3a. (Not related to the original post) Can the caster tell the rest of the party to close their eyes when casting pyrotechnics to avoid being blinded?
3b. Can the caster close their eyes after casting pyrotechnics to avoid being blinded?
Thanks again for all the help!
|
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.
Except it's not an Attack, it's a Move Action by the caster. That's relevant, is it not? I know the word "attack" and the technical term "Attack" are being conflated here, but they shouldn't be.
The mage directing a flaming sphere to move into an enemy is not making an Attack, he's making a Move Action. Therefore his invis doesn't drop. At least that's how I read the OP's question. The distinction with a Move Action vs. an Attack is relevant.
Just because directing the sphere is a move action once the spell has been cast does not make it a move action period end of statement. It is STILL an attack causing damage to an opponent. You are still making an attack intentionally damaging another creature by your DIRECT actions. That breaks your invis. Read carefully the invis spell. Any spell that is cast on an opponent (i.e. does not have to be an attack spell) OR area of affect that comes in contact with an opponent or contains an opponent breaks the spell. The definition of opponent is directly related to the INTENTIONS of the caster. As per the spell. It is very clear that the intentions of the caster are clearly taken into consideration.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. This was a tricky call, but one that can be seen from both sides. In the end, my DM didn't have any problems with the invisibility staying active when the sphere rolls into an enemy.
Now, can I ask yet another question?
If you were to cast pyrotechnics on the sphere...
1. Is the flame from the flaming sphere magical? Does it go away when cast?
2. Does the invisibility end once you cast pyrotechnics on the sphere?
3a. (Not related to the original post) Can the caster tell the rest of the party to close their eyes when casting pyrotechnics to avoid being blinded?
3b. Can the caster close their eyes after casting pyrotechnics to avoid being blinded?Thanks again for all the help!
1. I would say that the fire from the flaming sphere is magical. I am divided whether it would stay or not because of the line in flaming sphere that says, "It can be extinguished by any means that would put out a normal fire of its size."
At the moment, I would say that it stays, although I might easily think differently later on.
2. I would say that invisibility would only end if there were enemies that were (or could have been) affected by the spell.
3a. I would say that the caster could tell the party to close their eyes, but that enemies could just as likely use that warning as well. Also I would set it such that they would be blind to attacks for the turn because of their eyes being shut.
3b. I would say no.
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.
Except it's not an Attack, it's a Move Action by the caster. That's relevant, is it not? I know the word "attack" and the technical term "Attack" are being conflated here, but they shouldn't be.
The mage directing a flaming sphere to move into an enemy is not making an Attack, he's making a Move Action. Therefore his invis doesn't drop. At least that's how I read the OP's question. The distinction with a Move Action vs. an Attack is relevant.
So all I have to do is quicken a spell to make it not qualify as an attack?
So all I have to do is quicken a spell to make it not qualify as an attack?
Seems like the ones that are Standard Actions to inflict on your enemies, whether AoE or not, are considered attacks. Casting a Wall of Flame which your foe then attempts to go through isn't an attack that makes you become visible either, by my reading.Honestly, the entire subject doesn't come up in my games. I neither inflict on my players not allow them to inflict upon me the abomination known as "Invisibility". There's the high level Improved Invis and that's it, no fuzzy questions and no problems.
So an attack does not have to be a standard action then.
An attack action(swinging a sword, firing a bow) is a standard action. That is what the rules are referring to. An attack of opportunity as an example does not take up a standard action, so that would bypass the invisibility spell too according to you other statement.
|
Here's how I use the invisibility spell, as per pathfinder.
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 don't read anything about *on the round you cast the spell*. So once your flaming sphere comes in contact with a foe, whether it rolled over him, or he rolled over it, you become visible.
I'd include summon monster too, if the text of the spell didn't specifically override it. Thus, any spell that would directly harm a creature by causing damage, penalties, or requiring saves, would deactivate the invisibility effect as soon as the first foe had to roll.
Flaming sphere would trigger once it dealt damage, since damage is an effect of the spell, though it might not be an Effect if you get the difference.
For pyrotechnics, same deal. Once it requires the will save vs blindness, you're not invisible anymore. I would say that the flaming sphere uses magical fire, so you could keep using it. Smoke cloud would break your invisibility as well.
Pyrotechnics wouldn't, unless you used it on a fire-based creature.
Spiritual Weapon creates an effect. That effect can be directed as a summoned monster can be directed. It shouldn't break invisibility.
Rays are considered effects, but you clearly attack with them as a ranged weapon.
The other effect spells (that aren't obviously summons, rays, or spells with attack rolls) are:
acid fog, cloudkill, flaming sphere, flare, hypnotic pattern, produce flame, rainbow pattern, resilient sphere, ventriloquism, and wall of ice.
Clearly produce flame can be cast while invisible -- but attacking with it will make you visible.
Ventriloquism is also a spell (like other figments) that doesn't break invisibility.
The other spells definitely blur the line between a direct attack and a "summoned" ability attacking on its own. For instance, if you create an acid fog with no creatures in it and creatures walk in it, should that count as breaking invisibility? Probably not. But if you cast an acid fog *on* a creature, does that count as breaking invisibility?
In the invisibility spell, it clearly says:
So really there's no clear definition. The 3.5 FAQ only provides the following for guidance:
requires a foe to resist its effect with a saving throw? What
about wall of fire?
No. Any spell that only causes harm indirectly (including
causing harm due to another creature’s actions, such as
sanctuary) is not an attack, even if its effects can be resisted
with a saving throw.
Other spells that can fall into this category include fire trap
(since its harmful effect is triggered by a character opening the
trapped item), spike stones (since its harmful effect is triggered
by a character walking over it), and wall of fire (since its
harmful effect is triggered by a character approaching within 20
feet).
Of course, even some of these spells can be cast in such a
way as to end an invisibility spell. If wall of fire is cast within
20 feet of another creature, it immediately and directly causes
harm to that creature, which would end invisibility.
So according to this ruling, all these spells *might* break invisibility.
* If they're cast in a way that creatures are in the area of the spell when it is cast, the spells break invisibility.
* If they're cast in a way that creatures aren't in the area of the spell when it is cast, the spells do not break invisibility.
So flaming sphere *can* break invisibility, but depending on how it is used, it doesn't have to break it. . .
Spiritual Weapon creates an effect. That effect can be directed as a summoned monster can be directed. It shouldn't break invisibility.
Rays are considered effects, but you clearly attack with them as a ranged weapon.
The other effect spells (that aren't obviously summons, rays, or spells with attack rolls) are:
acid fog, cloudkill, flaming sphere, flare, hypnotic pattern, produce flame, rainbow pattern, resilient sphere, ventriloquism, and wall of ice.
Clearly produce flame can be cast while invisible -- but attacking with it will make you visible.
Ventriloquism is also a spell (like other figments) that doesn't break invisibility.
The other spells definitely blur the line between a direct attack and a "summoned" ability attacking on its own. For instance, if you create an acid fog with no creatures in it and creatures walk in it, should that count as breaking invisibility? Probably not. But if you cast an acid fog *on* a creature, does that count as breaking invisibility?
In the invisibility spell, it clearly says:
** spoiler omitted **
So really there's no clear definition. The 3.5 FAQ only provides the following for guidance:
** spoiler omitted **...
A bit off topic, but I am glad that the "All his gear" part is in there. Imagine how embarrassed you could be if it wasn't!
At any rate, the examples they give for 3.5 do intrigue me. This basically means that you're allowed to debuff, such as with pyrotechnics, or allowed to summon whatever you want provided your action RIGHT NOW doesn't hurt them. If I dropped the spell Wall of Fire on your head, I would become visible. If I put it near you with the fire radiation side facing towards you, I would become visible. If I fire ringed around you with the radiation going out and hitting no one? You are now in my donut of fire, enjoy your stay and I'll keep being invisible.
That means if you cast Wall of Ice you can be invisible and drop a hemisphere of ice over people and remain invisible once they hack it open, even when they take damage from the freezing air in the hole they made. If you were to, say, turn that space they're about to step on into lava, it still doesn't break it since they can just say they stop moving before they step on it. This all provided they're not in the lava's heat damage area.
Do we accept this into the debate and build off of it, or do we dismiss it?
There ya go then, that's pretty definitive. So, Spiritual Weapon and other Summoned effects will break standard Invis.
Summoning spells won't. The Summoner is giving the order to a creature he brought there. Technically it's the creature's action since he's a separate entity.
That's my justification anyway. Makes sense fluff wise, but rules wise it's a nightmare.
There ya go then, that's pretty definitive. So, Spiritual Weapon and other Summoned effects will break standard Invis.
Actually no, that's not what they say at all.
The summons and spiritual weapons do not have an area. The other spells (rainbow pattern, etc.) do have an area that a creature can start in. You definitely do not lose invisibility by creating a spiritual weapon (which appears and you direct to attack a creature) or a summon (which appears and you direct to attack).
That means if you cast Wall of Ice you can be invisible and drop a hemisphere of ice over people and remain invisible once they hack it open, even when they take damage from the freezing air in the hole they made.
That's debatable, unfortunately. I have no problem with invisibility breaking when the hemisphere wall of ice goes off. The creature is in the area when the spell goes off, so it should technically break invisibility.
Except it's not an Attack, it's a Move Action by the caster. That's relevant, is it not? I know the word "attack" and the technical term "Attack" are being conflated here, but they shouldn't be.
The mage directing a flaming sphere to move into an enemy is not making an Attack, he's making a Move Action. Therefore his invis doesn't drop. At least that's how I read the OP's question. The distinction with a Move Action vs. an Attack is relevant.
GM: Your Invisiblity drops, you attacked.
PLAYER: No I didn't attack. My Fighter just moved his sword through him! Its a move action!
Anyway, I think that directing the sphere to a square with an enemy is certainly an attack and should cause you to become visible.
Using the same logic, directing a summoned creature to attack would break invisibility. It doesn't. . .
Anyway, I think that directing the sphere to a square with an enemy is certainly an attack and should cause you to become visible.Using the same logic, directing a summoned creature to attack would break invisibility. It doesn't. . .Only if you are using telekinesis to throw the critter at him.
Summoned critters, while present via spell (and dependent upon the spell for continuing to be there) are not a spell in and of themselves.
Summoned critters can delay and act independently. Them attacking is no more damaging to your invis spell as the fighter that you hasted.
Fireballing your foes on the other hand IS an attack. Likewise is having your spiritual weapon attack a foe, calling down lightning on someone or moving your flaming sphere to try to burn someone with your spell.
-James
Dispel magic disagrees with you. Just like flame sphere you cast dispel magic on the summoned monsters to make them go bye bye.
The more I look at this thread, the more I'm minded to just house rule the invisibility spell to be 'If you cast any spell, interact with any creature in any way, or perform any action that requires an attack roll the invisibility spell ends'.
Then there is no 'Well, it wasn't an attack'. You cast a spell, it drops. You attack someone, it ends. You interact with an inanimate object (sawing the rope on the bridge) it stays up. You push a rock off a ledge and that rock hits someone, you stay invisible (you interacted with an inanimate object, didn't require an attack roll). You trip someone, it ends. You shoot someone with a bow, it ends. You cast magic missile, it ends.
Using this one, you could cast flaming sphere, THEN cast invisibility and move it around and you'd stay invisible (no attack roll, no cast) and that would be fine. Same with spiritual hammer (the hammer makes the attack roll, not you), summoned creatures, etc. I think it would be in the spirit of the spell, and the detail would keep the questions to a minimum. Although I'm sure there's some sneaky snarky person out there that could find some cheesy way to abuse it.