If you had an Invisibility spell cast on you and you destroyed - or attempted to destroy - an object, either smashing a glass bottle or attempting to sunder a chain, would that be considered an 'attack' and therefor end the spell?
What if you cast a Lightning Bolt spell or something similar to accomplish the task?
What if you cast a Summoning spell and order them to attack someone?
Not sure, but I want to hear what people say.
I just realized that its been an awful long time since I actually looked at the text of the spell - thanks for the link.
|
1. Breaking an unattended object doesn't end invisibility, even if the indirect results of doing so injure someone. If someone is carrying the object (making it a sunder manoeuvre) or if the target itself is a creature, such as an intelligent item, it is an attack on a foe and ends invisibility.
2. If the lightning bolt only hits unattended objects and doesn't include any creature, it doesn't break invisibility.
3. No. Summoning creatures is a standard use of invisibility and specifically allowed by the spell.
how about throwing an acid bottle right next to someone, so he is included in the splash radius?
how about throwing a rock with telekinesis at someone, targeting the square before him, but as it won't stop all of a sudden, will still hit him?
How about rolling a big rock (Indiana Jones style) in the direction of someone (with telekinesis)?
|
|
how about throwing an acid bottle right next to someone, so he is included in the splash radius?
how about throwing a rock with telekinesis at someone, targeting the square before him, but as it won't stop all of a sudden, will still hit him?
How about rolling a big rock (Indiana Jones style) in the direction of someone (with telekinesis)?
Yes. To all.
Setting Bear Traps all around an enemy?
No.
how about throwing an acid bottle right next to someone, so he is included in the splash radius?
how about throwing a rock with telekinesis at someone, targeting the square before him, but as it won't stop all of a sudden, will still hit him?
How about rolling a big rock (Indiana Jones style) in the direction of someone (with telekinesis)?
The spell specifically states that it depends on whether the caster's intent is to attack. If you blast a door with a lightning bolt to blow it open, you keep invisibility, even if you hit three guards standing behind the door that you didn't know were there.
The rule is simple. Attacks break invisibility. It doesn't matter if you hit or what your target is. If you attack, you break.
Not quite so simple, I'm afraid, though it IS clear, as defined by the spell's text:
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.
|
Its pretty simple Mercurial... you seem to intentionally making it harder than it has to be or ignoring the idea that someone would know if they are attacking someone. If you intentionally throw a bottle hoping to get someone with the splash... Well, there is your intent. If you run along a castle wall invisible lobbing oil or acid over the edge without looking and the GM randomly determines what square they hit then it wouldn't break the spell. If you run along the castle wall hoping lobbing one or two to get just the guards.... there is your intent...
If you cut the rope that holds the castle portculis door and it happens to fall and crush someone it doesn't break the spell. If you see the person go under the door, waiting for the opportune time to cut the rope so they get crushed, it does. Indirect attacks are non-intentional. If there is intent to do harm to others (such as targeting a square near them so they get splashed) you lose invisibility.
Players aren't Pyros from TF2 who think they're sticking lollypops in enemies' mouths... They know they are cleaving heads open.
Its not rocket science.
Maouse,
It CLEARLY states that you CAN wait until enemies are on the rope bridge before you cut the rope. Therefore, the same holds true for waiting until someone is under the portcullis to drop it. It is fair game also.
You need to drop the word "intent" from your arguments as that words appears NOWHERE under the spell listing. You used "Intent and unintentional" 6 times in your statement. Intent was used in previous versions of D&D...but not this one.
"Indirect attacks are non-intentional." Ummmm ...if I intended to cut the rope bridge to drop my enemies to their death, it is pretty dang intentional. And fair game by the exact wording of the spell. This is an incorrect statement and over-simplification.
You are correct, however, in the fact it is not rocket science. DIRECT attacks by the person Invis'ed break the spell. Indirect attacks do not.