Does casting Summon Monster X break Invisibility?

[Scrogz]

We have always played Summon Monster as being an attack spell thus breaking invis. Anyone know the "official" ruling or play it differently?

[Fozbek]

Read the invisibility spell.

Quote:

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.

[Cartigan]

No. It doesn't. Never has. Unless rules have been changed in Pathfinder that I missed, it never will.

[Chakfor]

Scrogz wrote:

We have always played Summon Monster as being an attack spell thus breaking invis. Anyone know the "official" ruling or play it differently?

No, it does not break invisibility. You're summoning a creature, that is not an inherently hostile action. Your invisibility is likewise not broken if the summoned creature attacks a foe (assuming you have taken no hostile actions).

[Cheapy]

No, but when casting you speak loudly if there are verbal components, so people could pinpoint you that way.

[KrispyXIV]

Cheapy wrote:

No, but when casting you speak loudly if there are verbal components, so people could pinpoint you that way.

This. You're giving your position away by allowing everyone a free chance to pinpoint your square, and since you are casting until just before your next turn, you can't even really put a lot of distance between yourself and the square you're casting in (except for maybe a 5 foot step).

Note: summoner's using their SLA have neither of the above issues. Its an SLA, which means no components, and a standard action means they can move from where they use it anyway.

[Ashiel]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

No, but when casting you speak loudly if there are verbal components, so people could pinpoint you that way.

This. You're giving your position away by allowing everyone a free chance to pinpoint your square, and since you are casting until just before your next turn, you can't even really put a lot of distance between yourself and the square you're casting in (except for maybe a 5 foot step).

Note: summoner's using their SLA have neither of the above issues. Its an SLA, which means no components, and a standard action means they can move from where they use it anyway.

He can begin casting as a standard action, move, move, complete casting. He has moved 30 ft each round and popped a monster out of his invisible hat.

[see]

Well, there's a special clause in Summon Monster X, unlike I-IX, that says it specifically breaks invisibility . . .

[EntrerisShadow]

see wrote:

Well, there's a special clause in Summon Monster X, unlike I-IX, that says it specifically breaks invisibility . . .

Where is Summon Monster X? I've been looking everywhere and cannot find it?

[Cheapy]

EntrerisShadow wrote:

see wrote:

Well, there's a special clause in Summon Monster X, unlike I-IX, that says it specifically breaks invisibility . . .

Where is Summon Monster X? I've been looking everywhere and cannot find it?

He was making a jab at the forum title and the fact that Summon Monster uses roman numerals.

In the forum title, "X" is used as in "Any of the Summon Monsters". In see's comment, it's used as "Summon Monster 10".

[see]

Cheapy wrote:

He was making a jab at the forum title and the fact that Summon Monster uses roman numerals.

In the forum title, "X" is used as in "Any of the Summon Monsters". In see's comment, it's used as "Summon Monster 10".

Well, "jab" is a bit harsher than my intent. I was going more, "smart-alec remark".