If the witch rolls a d20, it's an attack and the invisibility fails.
If the target rolls a d20, it was an attack and the invisibility fails.
I think that's the short of it, really.
I would say the litmus test would be if you roll an attack roll or not.
I would say the litmus test would be if you roll an attack roll or not.
Or the target a save.
Not always some spells might have a saving throw that wouldn't count. Lets say you know I'm invisible and have Santuary up just because you have to make a will save doesn't mean I'm now visable.
I agree with Talonhawke, VRMH. I intentionally didn't mention saves.
Hm. A good point, I stand corrected.
A good rule of thumb is that if it effects the creature in a direct and negitave way then it breaks it. Cackle wouldn't break it since its only extending some negitive effects. But something like scar would.
The scar errata makes that pretty obvious though since you need to succeed in a melee touch attack to use it.
No Evil eye would definatly break it even at range.
You can't really assume that though, thejeff. While hexes as we know them didn't exist supernatural abilities certainly did. Spell-like abilities fall into spells but supernatural abilities are their own thing entirely. It's actually an uncertainty.
You can't really assume that though, thejeff. While hexes as we know them didn't exist supernatural abilities certainly did. Spell-like abilities fall into spells but supernatural abilities are their own thing entirely. It's actually an uncertainty.
Supernatural abilities mostly follow the general rules except where other wise stated. There is really no reason why an attack roll based or target based supernatural ability would not break invisibility. I seriously doubt a dragon that uses his breath weapon against you will not break invisibility as an example.
An attack roll based ability would break it as attacks are specifically laid out to break invisibility. However, since (Su)s don't follow a set formula it's hard to say on abilities that don't allow for it. You can say anything that deals HP damage but then what about evil eye? What about (Su)s that deal negative energy but unbeknownst to you you're targeting a dhampir. You're not hurting it. It's largely contextual to say the least.
That attack section is not just referring to spells. It is an across the board rule. That is why it list channeling energy as an example.
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.
It first says some spell descriptions refer to attacking. It then goes on to say that "All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks.". Afterwards it list channel energy as one example of such actions that are not spells. It then goes back into talking about spells.
Wow just noted by that line trying to attack an invisible cleric with santuary up would make that cleric visable.
Wow just noted by that line trying to attack an invisible cleric with santuary up would make that cleric visable.
What line?
All spells opponents resis with saving throws
All spells opponents resis with saving throws
I did not even notice that. Wouldn't that also make many of the illusion spells attacks? I don't like that line, not as written anyway. If it were limited to spells cast directly on or at someone that would be different.
Yep there could be several spells you wouldn't think would be affected that might now.
to make this easier: are there ANY witch hexes that would NOT break invisibility? or maybe a combination of them?
(example: scarred enemy gets a secondary effect, or a cackling witch hex modified by the cackling?)
I am unsure hexes even get considered as spells to begin with (or at least most of those)
Cackling does not target anyone. If the hex does not target anyone, force them to make a save or do any damage then it should not break invis. I think that covers it.
PS:Hexes are not spells, but they can still be considered to be attacks, just like channel energy can.
so, wraith: If a hex got used on someone, then witch got invisible, then she cackles to increase duration of the hex, the Invisibility will not break, correct?
|
This is not a case of a rules-defined term "attack." Rather, this is a case of a common sense definition of "attack". We're not talking about an Attack Roll, or a Combat Maneuver roll, or any other game definition. We're talking about what would constitute an attack by any *reasonable* definition.
Merriam-Webster online defines Attack as, among other things:
: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
Anything that you initiate that targets an opponent or opponents with the intent to harm them in any way is an attack, regardless of the *type* of ability. Examples of attacks in the game:
This is not an exhaustive list, but it should give a good idea.
we need only the game definition of attack, not of some online dictionary or wikipedia, otherwise falchion would be a one-handed weapon since ages
so, wraith: If a hex got used on someone, then witch got invisible, then she cackles to increase duration of the hex, the Invisibility will not break, correct?
Correct.
Strictly speaking, if using the same rules as spells, Cackle includes foes in it's area of effect and would thus break invisibility.
Cackle does not have an area of affect. It only extends the time of the previous hex. In short it aterget/affects the hex, not any opponent or ally. It is no different than a feat that gives you the ability get an extra smite as an example, except that it cost a move action to activate.
Cackle only affects those within 30 ft of the witch, so I guess it's debatable.
AoE has a specific meaning in the game so really it is not debatable. An AoE is like a fireball. It is an emation that affect everyone within that radius. Cackle never affects a person. It targets the hex that is effecting anyone within that range.
Cackle (Su): A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.
You see the cackle extends the hex by acting upon the hex similar to how extend spell makes a spell last longer. The main difference is that extend spell takes place when the spell is cast, while cackle can be done after the hex is in play. Well it also helps that the cackle extends to all hexes with a certain distance, and not just one. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about a witches familiar delivering a touch spell. Is it the act of casting the spell (witch) or the act of delivering the spell (familiar) which constitutes the attack? Does this break the invisibility spell?
A familiar is its own creature so the caster would not lose invisibility. However if the familiar was invisible it would lose invisibility.