Invisibility Question

[OldManAlexi]

Invisibility wrote:

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.

I am interpreting this to mean that if you sneak up on a random person and cast suggestion to convince him that attacking someone is a good idea, you stay invisible. However, if you do the exact same thing to someone you consider an enemy, you will become visible.

Is this correct? If so, how would you decide who is a "foe"? Would it be someone you're actively fighting? Someone you've fought before? Someone whose goals oppose your own?

I'm asking because turning invisible and casting suggestion seems like something an imp would do all the time. However, corrupting the righteous through repeated suggestions would be quite difficult if they become visible each time they try it.

[Brogue The Rogue]

The terms "ally" and "enemy" (or "foe" in this case) are not strictly defined in Pathfinder, unfortunately.

But I don't know a single GM that would let you cast any non-buff spell on a non-friendly target in the manner you're describing without breaking invisibility. It's certainly the intent of the rules that invisibility be broken if you do the aforementioned actions.

A foe is generally defined by most groups as any non-ally. If an NPC has a starting disposition of Indifferent (which usually they would), that would definitely make them not an ally. Sadly, there's no actual RAW text that covers those definitions, so you could sneak away with cheesing this if your GM is a fool.

As for your more specific vague example, one could argue that all righteous people are enemies of an imp. If you wanted to play semantics, and imp could never suggest them and maintain invisibility.

[Dabbler]

Both are attacks because casting suggestion is definable as an attack, and attacking someone makes them your foe. If you are using suggestion to make them do something they would not otherwise do, that's certainly an attack.

Convoluted? yes, but basically it's pretty silly that an action on one person does not make you visible while on another it does not.

As for your Imp, he hides (he's only small) and then uses his suggestion power from there.

[OldManAlexi]

Right, tiny and flying. +8 Stealth would work... Now, if only imps had actual ranks in it too. Still, getting total concealment wouldn't be that hard for something the size of a cat.

Edit: Oh, plus, change shape into something that would be ignored.

In hindsight, I'm not sure why I was worried about this.

[Talonhawke]

Head band of int would give it those ranks or take the feat to give i a 1-pt evolution and pick the skilled one for another +8

[Quatar]

I would say if you cast a spell on someone that allows a saving throw, and is not (harmless), or even if (harmless) but they decide to take the saving throw, then thats an attack.

So casting Cure Light Wounds on your fighter buddy is not an attack since the fighter will not try to save against it. Casting the same spell on the zombie attacking your fighter buddy, is most certainly an attack.

That "if it allows a save" is just a rule-of-thumb for situations where it's not clear if someone is an enemy or not. There may be spells especially high level ones that do not allow saves but are very clearly hostile in nature and are usually cast on enemies. But usually with those it's easy to decide if its an enemy or not.

[Dabbler]

Quatar wrote:

So casting Cure Light Wounds on your fighter buddy is not an attack since the fighter will not try to save against it. Casting the same spell on the zombie attacking your fighter buddy, is most certainly an attack.

It IS an attack in every sense on the zombie, but not because you cast the spell: you have to make a touch attack to deliver it.

[Grick]

Dabbler wrote:

It IS an attack in every sense on the zombie, but not because you cast the spell: you have to make a touch attack to deliver it.

As a tiny nitpick: Casting Cure Light Wounds would not break invisibility. Actually making the touch attack would.

[Dabbler]

Grick wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

It IS an attack in every sense on the zombie, but not because you cast the spell: you have to make a touch attack to deliver it.

As a tiny nitpick: Casting Cure Light Wounds would not break invisibility. Actually making the touch attack would.

Exactly.

[Anguish]

The disturbing truth is that the invisibility spell works best if you suspend simulationist viewpoints long enough to accept that it somehow is aware of intent. Easily one of the things I'm least-comfortable with the game but it makes ruling at the table very easy while making no logical sense. If your action is chosen to harm or inconvenience someone, you become visible. If you cast something at, on, or including a target, your intent toward that target matters.

Crazy.

[blahpers]

Anguish wrote:

The disturbing truth is that the invisibility spell works best if you suspend simulationist viewpoints long enough to accept that it somehow is aware of intent. Easily one of the things I'm least-comfortable with the game but it makes ruling at the table very easy while making no logical sense. If your action is chosen to harm or inconvenience someone, you become visible. If you cast something at, on, or including a target, your intent toward that target matters.

Crazy.

It isn't perfect, though. If you decide to cast summon monster V to have some fiendish critters take out your target, your intent is clear, but the RAW specifically mention that this would not end invisiblity.