Sleight of Hand Breaking Invisibility

[Eacaraxe]

This came up in another thread (the DM wizard hate thread over in general discussion), and I thought I would take it upon myself to seek clarification. The circumstance in particular is an invisible arcane trickster using ranged legerdemain to pickpocket a wizard's spell component pouch, though this could certainly extend to any use of sleight of hand to pick-pocket.

So, here are the background assumptions and info:

Spoiler:

- The wizard is unaware of the trickster, allowing the SoH check.
- The trickster is using normal invisibility, as per the 2nd-level spell.
- A spell component pouch is an attended object.
- Sleight of Hand is a skill check.
- Ranged legerdemain is a supernatural ability.

Here is the pertinent excerpt from invisibility:

Spoiler:

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.

Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments in favor of breaking stealth:

Spoiler:

- Sleight of Hand targets a foe, because the component pouch is an attended object. The type of action is irrelevant, only the targeting.
- The action harms the foe. That harm is direct.

Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments against breaking stealth:

Spoiler:

- Sleight of hand is not an attack as defined by invisibility, not being a spell, spell-like ability, attack action or combat maneuver. There is evidence for this within ranged legerdemain's description, as using sleight of hand at range would incur the -20 sniping penalty for stealth were it considered an attack, but it does not.
- The action does not incur damage, negative modifiers or negative conditions, which seems to be the threshold of "harm" for invisibility.
- Even if stealing a spell component pouch constitutes "harm", it is not direct because it only prevents a caster from casting spells with material components, not prohibiting spell casting directly as would silence or disruption, forcing caster level or concentration checks, or applying negative modifiers to those checks.

The rules themselves include critical omissions of fact or ambiguous statements either way:

Spoiler:

- Skill checks are omitted from invisibility's special targeting rules or for what is considered an attack.
- Invisibility specifies actions against (i.e. attacking) unattended objects do not break stealth. It omits whether this applies to attended objects, but actions such as disarms, sunders or item-targeting spells are already accounted for as attacks and spells.

So, what does everyone think?

[FireclawDrake]

If this were to occur in my game, I would probably allow it., though only because of the ranged legerdemain. A normal attempt at pickpocketing would likely result in the invisibility breaking due to touching an enemy. (Touching would be a touch attack as far as I'm concerned).

[mcbobbo]

I can't see anything here that would lead me to believe that an 'attack' describes what's going on here. Some questions:

Are any status used by the defender that traditionally mitigate attacks? E.g. AC, CMD, saving throws, etc?

Are there any other skill checks that qualify as 'attacks'?

Would you limit the use of this ability in the same manner as an attack, in terms of use per round, provoking an AoO, etc?

In what point of view is this a spell? The text above doesn't say 'spell or supernatural ability', it merely says 'spell'.

I haven't looked any of this up yet, but thus far it seems that breaking invisibility based on this action is a stretch of the rules.

It says above:

Quote:

Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell.

I do not think this/the reverse is necessarily logical:

Quote:

Actions directed at attended objects always break the spell.

I think the truth is that only attack actions directed at attended objects break the spell.

[Lurk3r]

I don't think stealing the spell component pouch constitutes harm as defined by the game- it doesn't deal damage. One of the good things about the abstract HP damage system is that you don't have to keep track of every cut and nick; If something hurts, it takes away HP. If it doesn't hurt, it doesn't take away HP (like SoH).

However this debate ends up, I'd also like to know how Invisibility interacts with the Steal combat maneuver.

[Ral' Yareth]

Eacaraxe wrote:

This came up in another thread (the DM wizard hate thread over in general discussion), and I thought I would take it upon myself to seek clarification. The circumstance in particular is an invisible arcane trickster using ranged legerdemain to pickpocket a wizard's spell component pouch, though this could certainly extend to any use of sleight of hand to pick-pocket.

So, here are the background assumptions and info:

** spoiler omitted **

Here is the pertinent excerpt from invisibility:

** spoiler omitted **

Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments in favor of breaking stealth:

** spoiler omitted **

Here is a bullet point summary of the arguments against breaking stealth:

** spoiler omitted **...

In my games sleight of hand would not constitute an attack. Invisibility would not break.

[Atarlost]

Lurk3r wrote:

I don't think stealing the spell component pouch constitutes harm as defined by the game- it doesn't deal damage. One of the good things about the abstract HP damage system is that you don't have to keep track of every cut and nick; If something hurts, it takes away HP. If it doesn't hurt, it doesn't take away HP (like SoH).

However this debate ends up, I'd also like to know how Invisibility interacts with the Steal combat maneuver.

Loss of spellcasting absolutely constitutes harm by any reasonable definition of harm. If the rules meant HP damage they'd say "HP damage." If they meant damage in general they'd say "damage." They use the much broader term harm, which is only defined in game as the name of a cleric spell. In all other contexts it follows the normal English usage.

[Spes Magna Mark]

Invisibility is broken by an attack. Sleight of Hand is not an attack. Therefore, Sleight of Hand does not break invisibility.

[Glendwyr]

As Spes Magna Mark notes, actual harm is irrelevant for the purposes of breaking invisibility. Pulling the lever that drops someone into the Acid Trap of Certain Death causes harm, but since it is not an attack is does not break invisibility. Shooting an arrow at someone but missing causes them no harm whatsoever but as an attack, it breaks invisibility.

As far as I'm concerned, a pretty sensible definition of "attack" for the purposes of the game is "making an attack roll." Invisibility adds casting a spell targeting a foe or including a foe in the area. Stealing a spell component pouch does neither, and it's certainly difficult for me to see how stealing something, whether its loss is important or not, is an attack.

Note also that by the d20pfsrd, we have under steal this:

SRD wrote:

If your attack is successful, you may take one item from your opponent. You must be able to reach the item to be taken (subject to GM discretion). Your enemy is immediately aware of this theft unless you possess the Greater Steal feat.

This would tend to indicate that using the steal combat maneuver breaks invisibility where Sleight of Hand does not, since using the maneuver is called an attack. This is consistent with the notion of attacks as indicating attack rolls, as performing combat maneuvers always require attack rolls.

[Glendwyr]

One additional note. I've seen in the original thread the argument that, paraphrased, an "attack" is meant to be understood in plain English, and that the plan English definition of an attack is something that is intended to cause harm.

To which I can only say that in plain English, "my wallet was stolen by a pick-pocket" in no way implies that I was attacked. To suggest otherwise is frankly ludicrous.

[wraithstrike]

FireclawDrake wrote:

If this were to occur in my game, I would probably allow it., though only because of the ranged legerdemain. A normal attempt at pickpocketing would likely result in the invisibility breaking due to touching an enemy. (Touching would be a touch attack as far as I'm concerned).

Touch attacks have a specific meaning in game terms so in order to call it a touch attack legally one must force an actual touch attack to be made.

[Tharg The Pirate King]

Wow, I hate when people read way too much into something. Its pretty clear what happens, the pouch is stolen and the person is invisible after success. Dont try to justify that somehow this is going to somehow become an attack when it is not. Even if it causes harm the invisibility description states that indirect harm is ok (stealing bag is not harmful, not being able to cast after stolen may be harmful but was indirect). Touching is not an attack, unless actuall dice are rolled to hit. A skill check is never an attack.

This whole argument seems to have been designed by someone who lost their item and want to find a way to see the person. well if perception failed then tough.

[Mok]

By RAW I'm not seeing anything compelling that would successfully argue that using sleight of hand would dispel invisibility.

[Diego Rossi]

mcbobbo wrote:

Are there any other skill checks that qualify as 'attacks'?

Interesting question, let's look it:

* Feint (bluff): Feinting in combat is a standard action.

- so technically you can feint and stay invisible. The skill don't explicitly require the target to see or even perceive the feint. Wird.

* Intimidate: This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Demoralize (part of the intimidate skill use): You can use this skill to cause your opponents to become shaken for a number of rounds. (clearly a negative effect targeted on someone). Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.

- again not a attack action, but it clearly damage one targeted creature.

* sleight of hand: Eacarax has already presented his arguments why it should not break invisibility when stealing from someone.

My point of view is that if your action do direct harm to someone, invisibility is broken, independently if you are using a spell, a magic item, a supernatural ability or a skill.
Direct harm include things like being subjected to negative effects, suffering a loss of your properties and so on.

Attacking or not attacking is irrelevant. "cut(ting) the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge" don't break invisibility, but it is an attack action. You are sundering the rope.

The spell, after listing a series of action that don't break invisibility, say: "If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear." And at the start of the spell description: "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature."
Note that it did not say if the subject use an attack action.

For me, taking something from someone should be considered a form of attack. Sleight of hand is subject to a different set of rules about being detected, so hiding/not hiding is irrelevant to the ability.

Note that casting a spell, using a spell like ability or supernatural ability and staying hidden is possible without any negative modifier, so the "sniping" argument is moot.

What seem relevant to the invisibility spell is if you are intent into directly damaging a foe or not.
For me stealing something is damaging a creature, independently if it is the spell pouch, a dagger, some coin or whatever.

[Glendwyr]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Attacking or not attacking is irrelevant. "cut(ting) the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge" don't break invisibility, but it is an attack action. You are sundering the rope.

Attacking is not only relevant, it's the only thing that's relevant, as you see by reading the description of the spell.

Note that the only thing it says about ending invisibility is that "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." So why doesn't cutting the rope on a rope bridge end invisibility even if you're sundering? Because the rope bridge is not a creature!

Diego Rossi wrote:

For me, taking something from someone should be considered a form of attack.

And that's fine, but if we're going to rely on some kind of plain English interpretation of "attack" rather than trying to look at what the rules call "attacks" elsewhere, we run immediately into the problem that in plain English, swiping something from someone's pocket is most certainly not an attack. This is why, for example, we distinguish between a pick-pocket and a mugger.

Incidentally, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that (a) ranged legerdemain is an ability that targets your spell component pouch, (b) you spell component pouch is an attended object, so therefore (c) ranged legerdemain is really targeting you and (d) should thereby break invisibility. I'm not sure I see a hole in the argument at the moment, even though as a DM I'd be inclined to reject it anyway.

[Diego Rossi]

Glendwyr wrote:

Incidentally, I'm more sympathetic to the argument that (a) ranged legerdemain is an ability that targets your spell component pouch, (b) you spell component pouch is an attended object, so therefore (c) ranged legerdemain is really targeting you and (d) should thereby break invisibility. I'm not sure I see a hole in the argument at the moment, even though as a DM I'd be inclined to reject it anyway.

The hole is that ranged legerdemain isn't a spell.

RAW using a spell like or supernatural ability working like charm person would not break invisibility.

[Glendwyr]

Diego Rossi wrote:

The hole is that ranged legerdemain isn't a spell.

RAW using a spell like or supernatural ability working like charm person would not break invisibility.

Sure. Candidly, I just assume that SLAs and supernatural abilities are meant to break invisibility even though I grant that RAW, they don't.

[Chris Mortika]

Atarlost wrote:

Loss of spellcasting absolutely constitutes harm by any reasonable definition of harm.

I don't agree, Atarlost. Removing a spell pouch may deny a wizard the tools he needs to cast spells. But turning out the lights may keep him from using scrolls. So might casting silence on an apple he's standing near. Adding a paralytic poison to a sorcerer's beverage may mess her up, too.

I wouldn't consider any of those to be any more directly harmful than summoning powerful monsters and directing them to attack the mage, which is called out as not breaking invisibility.

[Mogart]

Glendwyr wrote:

As Spes Magna Mark notes, actual harm is irrelevant for the purposes of breaking invisibility. Pulling the lever that drops someone into the Acid Trap of Certain Death causes harm, but since it is not an attack is does not break invisibility. Shooting an arrow at someone but missing causes them no harm whatsoever but as an attack, it breaks invisibility.

As far as I'm concerned, a pretty sensible definition of "attack" for the purposes of the game is "making an attack roll." Invisibility adds casting a spell targeting a foe or including a foe in the area. Stealing a spell component pouch does neither, and it's certainly difficult for me to see how stealing something, whether its loss is important or not, is an attack.

Note also that by the d20pfsrd, we have under steal this:

SRD wrote:

If your attack is successful, you may take one item from your opponent. You must be able to reach the item to be taken (subject to GM discretion). Your enemy is immediately aware of this theft unless you possess the Greater Steal feat.

This would tend to indicate that using the steal combat maneuver breaks invisibility where Sleight of Hand does not, since using the maneuver is called an attack. This is consistent with the notion of attacks as indicating attack rolls, as performing combat maneuvers always require attack rolls.

As a DM I would likely argue that you are messing with an enemy while invisible, so it is considered a hostile action aka an attack.

But forgetting that. What happens if I aim and then pull the lever on a catapult, or light the fuse on a cannon? Each action is innocent enough, much like pulling the acid trap lever. But each also functions like the bow and arrow, the only difference is that the bow and arrow is considered an attack.
Do I lose invisibility if I activate cannons and catapults, since I am simply pulling a lever or lighting a fuse which does other stuff?

[Glendwyr]

Mogart wrote:

As a DM I would likely argue that you are messing with an enemy while invisible, so it is considered a hostile action aka an attack.

But an attack isn't the same thing as a hostile action. Pulling the lever that drops you into a pit full of acid is certainly hostile, but is not an attack.

Mogart wrote:

But forgetting that. What happens if I aim and then pull the lever on a catapult, or light the fuse on a cannon? Each action is innocent enough, much like pulling the acid trap lever. But each also functions like the bow and arrow, the only difference is that the bow and arrow is considered an attack.

Do I lose invisibility if I activate cannons and catapults, since I am simply pulling a lever or lighting a fuse which does other stuff?

I'd say yes, but I'd also say that using a catapult or a cannon implies making an attack roll.

Basically, I think the most reasonable way to determine what constitutes an "attack" is to look at the other cases where the word is used in the rules and follow those guidelines. In instances where the rules are silent or ambiguous, we can fall back on the plain English meaning of the word "attack." And while this is not conclusive, essentially every use of the word "attack" in the combat section on the prd is used in conjunction with something that requires making an attack roll.

So I'd argue that the rules don't use the word "attack" in a way that suggests that picking someone's pocket is an attack, and that the plain English meaning of the word "attack" does not include picking someone's pocket, and we are thus on perfectly safe ground in suggesting that picking someone's pocket is not an attack and therefore does not break invisibility.

On the other hand, shooting a cannon at someone is consistent with what the rules call an attack and falls under the plain English meaning of the word, so we're on perfectly safe ground in saying that shooting a cannon at someone is an attack and therefore does break invisibility.

All that said, at the end of the day, the answer is always "ask your DM."

[Mogart]

The other aspect of this is that the wizard should get some sort of perception check to see that his bag is seemingly floating away. When I think of stealing an item I usually think of the steal item attack action, and I usually associate Sleight of Hand with non-combat situations.(As in once initiative is rolled we are in combat, and sleight of hand no longer being an attack action no longer applies.)

Although I find the catapult interpretation interesting. So now pulling levers can either do nothing or turn off invisibility depending on what the lever is attached to. If the lever is attached to a drawbridge or a pit trap you are fine, but if the lever is attached to a ballista or a catapult you are visible. Seems very hair splitting to me.

What if you light an explosive and set it on the ground in the midst of the enemy. Does that turn it off?

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Mogart wrote:

The other aspect of this is that the wizard should get some sort of perception check to see that his bag is seemingly floating away. When I think of stealing an item I usually think of the steal item attack action, and I usually associate Sleight of Hand with non-combat situations.(As in once initiative is rolled we are in combat, and sleight of hand no longer being an attack action no longer applies.)

There is already a mechanic for this. Perception vs. Sleight of hand.

Also, When the invisible rogue puts the pouch under his shirt/vest/down his pants the pouch too becomes invisible. It doesn't appear to float away unless the rogue is dumb enough to hold it in his hand once lifted.

Steal the combat trick is an attack.
Sleight of hand the non-combat skill is not an attack. I believe several people are confusing the two things.

[Writer]

It states in the linked rules that sleight of hand is not an attack. The difference between Sleight of hand and the steal combat manuever is that one isn't even attempting to be stealthy and the other is. If I use the Steal combat maneuver i am stealth somethin right off of you, most likely with ur full attention since i probably have you grappled (correct me if im wrong) to do so. Sleight of hand is like cutting a purse and taknig the change that falls out; you re trying not to get caught. You would have to make a sleight vs perception, and if they succeed u probably provoke AoO among other disadvantages, but the RAW goes out of the way to state using skills and therefore Sleight of Hand doesn't break Invisibility.

[Happler]

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Mogart wrote:

The other aspect of this is that the wizard should get some sort of perception check to see that his bag is seemingly floating away. When I think of stealing an item I usually think of the steal item attack action, and I usually associate Sleight of Hand with non-combat situations.(As in once initiative is rolled we are in combat, and sleight of hand no longer being an attack action no longer applies.)

There is already a mechanic for this. Perception vs. Sleight of hand.

Also, When the invisible rogue puts the pouch under his shirt/vest/down his pants the pouch too becomes invisible. It doesn't appear to float away unless the rogue is dumb enough to hold it in his hand once lifted.

Steal the combat trick is an attack.
Sleight of hand the non-combat skill is not an attack. I believe several people are confusing the two things.

I agree with you, but in this case it may appear to be floating away. After all, he is using ranged legerdemain. So it is going to float from the wizard to a point (where ever that may be) that the rogue can cover it up. I think that this would get an extra perception check or a bonus to the original (higher if the rogue is farther away) to cover that fact.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Happler wrote:

I agree with you, but in this case it may appear to be floating away. After all, he is using ranged legerdemain. So it is going to float from the wizard to a point (where ever that may be) that the rogue can cover it up. I think that this would get an extra perception check or a bonus to the original (higher if the rogue is farther away) to cover that fact.

That's already covered. Ranged Letharian already has a +5 to the difficulty to cover the "floating away" thing.

Edit: and RT already has a range. I think it's 30 feet.

[Diego Rossi]

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Mogart wrote:

The other aspect of this is that the wizard should get some sort of perception check to see that his bag is seemingly floating away. When I think of stealing an item I usually think of the steal item attack action, and I usually associate Sleight of Hand with non-combat situations.(As in once initiative is rolled we are in combat, and sleight of hand no longer being an attack action no longer applies.)

There is already a mechanic for this. Perception vs. Sleight of hand.

Also, When the invisible rogue puts the pouch under his shirt/vest/down his pants the pouch too becomes invisible. It doesn't appear to float away unless the rogue is dumb enough to hold it in his hand once lifted.

Steal the combat trick is an attack.
Sleight of hand the non-combat skill is not an attack. I believe several people are confusing the two things.

The OP is speaking of ranged legerdemain during combat, so the pouch float away to the thief that can be up to 30' away.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

From PHB:
Ranged Legerdemain (Su) : An arcane trickster can use Disable Device and Sleight of Hand at a range of 30 feet. Working at a distance increases the normal skill check DC by 5, and an arcane trickster cannot take 10 on this check. Any object to be manipulated must weigh 5 pounds or less. She can only use this ability if she has at least 1 rank in the skill being used.

The added difficulty for working at range (ie having a pouch float away) is already taken into consideration.