Yes, the difference between spiritual weapon, flaming sphere, and summoned monsters seems to be nill for all intents and purposes.
So you think that a spell that makes a weapon of force that attacks with your BAB as you direct it is not an attack??
-James
So what happens if I cast spiritual weapon and direct it to attack a creature, then cast invisibility?
The weapon keeps attacking on its own with no thought or action required on my part. I am literally doing nothing(not even using a free action), and it keeps attacking.
In that case, it is very obvious that the spell is attacking the person not the caster, much like a summoned creature.
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.
Oh, you mean like the Invisibility we had in previous editions of D&D?
Me, I would go more what what it seems the RAI wants. My houserule for Invisibility would be: "If you deliberately attack, cause harm, or affect in a negative way, anything that could be constitued as a creature, an enemy, or a hostile or netural or even friendly party, or if you any of these things through any intermediary that you directly control, then the Invisibility spell immediately ends. Summoning monsters that attack of their own volition will not cause Invisibility to end."
This will still allow invisible buffing, or invisible healing, etc., but it will not allow any use of spells, dancing weapons, etc., to be employed against known enemies. It will, however, allow the Invisibility to remain active on accidental damage, such as rolling a flaming sphere over an unseen enemy (and for this purpoes, if you know there are unseen enemies out there and you're trying to burn them, it is still counted as a deliberate action to try to burn them, even if it's purely random chance to actually hit them). And the last sentence about summoning is there because it's there in the Pathfinder Core rules for this spell, so I kept it.
Note: I'm sure someone who takes the time can find loopholes in the wording. I'm sure I can too. I'm equally sure I can take the time to add additional wording to eliminate those loopholes. I just didn't feel it was worth it; I think the RAI of my wording is crystal clear and anyone looking for wording loopholes will know it too - and if I'm wrong and missed some crystal clarity, then I'll amend my wording if and when necessary. Or, not really, because I'm satisfied with what I wrote, and the intent thereof, so I'll probably go no farther with it.
Oh, you mean like the Invisibility we had in previous editions of D&D?
LOL, basically. :)
Me, I would go more what what it seems the RAI wants. My houserule for Invisibility would be: "If you deliberately attack, cause harm, or affect in a negative way, anything that could be constitued as a creature, an enemy, or a hostile or netural party, or if you any of these things through any intermediary that you directly control, then the Invisibility spell immediately ends. Summoning monsters and having them attack will not cause Invisibility to end."This will still allow invisible buffing, or invisible healing, etc., but it will not allow any use of spells, dancing weapons, etc., to be employed against known enemies. It will, however, allow the Invisibility to remain active on accidental damage, such as rolling a flaming sphere over an unseen enemy (and for...
I could live with that one too. I just prefer short quick easy to interpret rules. That one makes me tired just thinking about reading it out loud. :)
I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
Ouch!
Never-missing magic missiles plus never-breaking invisibility sounds like an easy "I Win!" button for a 3rd level wizard.
Sure, maybe not every encounter, but when it really counts. Unless he gets his hands on a wand of magic missiles.
I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
Ouch!
Never-missing magic missiles plus never-breaking invisibility sounds like an easy "I Win!" button for a 3rd level wizard.
Sure, maybe not every encounter, but when it really counts. Unless he gets his hands on a wand of magic missiles.
Until your opponent casts shield....
|
I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
thats what Greater Invisibility is for.
thats what Greater Invisibility is for.I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
No,
Greater invisibility is for 'I cast Fireball on you!', or 'I cast Ray on you', or 'I cast meteor storm on you!' etc.Currently, you can buff, heal, summon, etc with Invisibility. But it get's wonky at the 'it's an attack if you affect a foe, but who is a foe is up to you' and 'what is an attack' arguments and 'who is a foe' arguments aren't worth it.
As I said, I'm fine with placing more limits or less limits on the spell, but get rid of the wonky wording that's currently being used.
I could also live with the following :
Any action that requires an attack roll causes the invisibility to end. Any action that does not require an attack roll does not end the invisibility.
This is a slightly more powerful version of the spell, but you could then for certain use Flaming Sphere, Magic Missile (no attack roll), buff, debuff, etc as long as it didn't require an attack roll. Summons would work fine too.
Frankly, I'd be fine with either version, but want something simple and clean and easy to interpret with as few lines as possible.
Ouch!
Never-missing magic missiles plus never-breaking invisibility sounds like an easy "I Win!" button for a 3rd level wizard.
Sure, maybe not every encounter, but when it really counts. Unless he gets his hands on a wand of magic missiles.
I've never, in any game, had a 3rd level wizard scream 'I WIN!' from using magic missile. Mainly because it does so little damage. Even being invisible and never missing isn't useful (if it were, you'd see wizards pulling this at 7th level using greater invisibility and magic missile, since they'd do more damage then with more missiles).
Even the warmages in my experience rarely use magic missile, and that's an automatic INT+(1/die) minimum automatic damage, just because the damage is too low.
I've never, in any game, had a 3rd level wizard scream 'I WIN!' from using magic missile. Mainly because it does so little damage.
...Even the warmages in my experience rarely use magic missile, and that's an automatic INT+(1/die) minimum automatic damage, just because the damage is too low.
Err... magic missile is actually the top-damage level 1 spell by a fairly huge margin, especially once you factor in that it never misses, essentially cannot be resisted, and deals full damage to ethereal and incorporeal creatures. 1d4+1 provides the same statistical average damage as 1d6, which means magic missile does anywhere from 1d6-5d6 damage at Long range. That's better than most 2nd level spells, even (scorching ray being a potential exception, except that it requires multiple attack rolls and is a commonly-resisted damage type).