| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
If an invisible mage casts web, or a similar spell, at an area with a group of bad guys, does the mage lose invisibility?
I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because it doesn't deal damage. So you don't "attack".
I'm not sure about a pit directly beneath a person tough.
It is an offensive action so yes he does lose invisibility. Otherwise most mages would just go invisibility, + other debuffs or pit spells which would be really redicoulous.
Invisible mages ussually buff the party or they summon monster (they summon monster can still attack while a mage is invisible.)
Depends. Some people use a guideline that if the spell you use causes the opponent to make a save, it's an attack, even if it's not damage, as you're using hostile magic. Others take it as damage only.
"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."
Yes, casting web upon enemies ends the spell. You could however cast the spell and then let them move into the area.
If an invisible mage casts web, or a similar spell, at an area with a group of bad guys, does the mage lose invisibility?
Well...
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All
offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving
throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or
hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters
or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves
don’t harm anyone.
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.
Yes.
Ok so that should also mean that if the mage instead casts obscuring mist, and enemies are in the area, the mage would lose invisibility right?
|
Ok so that should also mean that if the mage instead casts obscuring mist, and enemies are in the area, the mage would lose invisibility right?
I can see that one going either way. If there was a foe inside the area of effect, and it was at my home home game, I would say no. If I was running a PFS game at a con I would say yes. If you take the rules as written it fits the bill.
Obscuring mist:
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
it doesn't deal damage, and it hampers the ennemies a lot less than a summoned creature (which a lot of people say is letting you stay invisible)
similar to the summons I would argue that the spell doesn't hamper the vision, it's the mist that it summons that hampers the vision. I know it's lame, but "any spell that hampers subjects" is too vague, I mean invisibility hampers the subject to see you, buffs hamper the subject to attack you properly. (btw. I know those last examples are ridiculous)
Ok so that should also mean that if the mage instead casts obscuring mist, and enemies are in the area, the mage would lose invisibility right?I can see that one going either way. If there was a foe inside the area of effect, and it was at my home home game, I would say no. If I was running a PFS game at a con I would say yes. If you take the rules as written it fits the bill.
Maybe.
But if you include the definition of attack, which Ice Titan quoted, and use both defininitions to resolve the Invisibility/Obscuring Mist question, then Obscuring Mist is not an attack, because it does not cause a saving throw, deal damage, harm, or hamper the enemies. Sure, it obscures sight, and maybe you can construe that as "hampering" the enemy, but when you think about it, the enemy himself is not hampered like he would be if you cast Blindness on him. His sight still works just fine, no impairment, no "hamper" - it's just that the environment around him limits his unhampered sight.
A fine distinction to be sure, but a distinction worthy of consideration nonetheless. And IMO, a distinction that lies within the letter of the RAW and which can allow for spells like Obscuring Mist to be cast without breaking Invisibility - which I believe to have been the intent all along, since Obscuring Mist really is not an attack of any sort.
His sight still works just fine, no impairment, no "hamper" - it's just that the environment around him limits his unhampered sight.
This is the main reason why I questioned web in the first place, because you can say the same thing about web.
However, It does have a saving throw to avoid getting stuck in the spell, so I can see why it could count as an attack, as well.
|
Obscuring Mist is a bad example because it's centered on the caster anyway. That said the text in Invisibility says "Hamper" and the effect certain may hamper a "foe's" vision & ability to target other creatures. Darkness would be a similar example, and really any Battlefield control spell should definitely count if an enemy is within the effect when cast.
--Vrock Down
|
|
To take what King of Vrock said one step further, if you cast wall of stone between you and your opponents, and took hamper to mean anything that hampers their vision anywhere, not just directly affecting the foe/target, then the wall would hamper their vision, and therefore be an attack. Heck, if you cast it to the east of both you and that group of enemies it hampers their vision of anything further east than the wall, even if it has no effect on your group vs the group of enemies. An attack is obviously meant to be defined by a spell or effect that will cause direct penalty and/or damage to the foe(s) being targeted. Passive penalties, such as from a wall, mist, or darkness really shouldn't apply. It is far more questionable if casting grease on an unattended spot on the ground (not occupied by anyone), or casting web or entangle in the same situation should cause invisibility to drop. I would rule no, that the wizard can cause a change in the field of battle without losing invisibility, but that is just a house rule, and not directly supported or refuted by RAW.
No that's not accurate. A wall of stone cast between the invisible caster and a foe does not include that foe in its area or effect, nor does it target that foe. Walls clearly fall into the same category as summon monster spells. It is an indirect effect. Obscuring mist covers an area and if a foe is in said area they fall under the Invisibility spell's "For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" clause.
It MUST include a foe. MUST.
--School of Vrock
|
|
So you wouldn't have an issue with an invis wizard casting wall of stone in front of an enemy party that was running away from a tidal wave? It's not an attack in itself, but causes imminent damage to the enemies... how about earthquake on one each end of a long stone bridge? It doesn't include the enemy in its effect, or target an ememy? How about earthquake on a mountain's slope to cause a landslide? I ask honestly, not just trying to argue.
Those are perfect examples of indirect damage. If a foe was standing on a trap door that opened by lever and you used mage hand to throw the lever that would not break invisibility.
--Vrocktoberfest