So from a perceptions stand point what if my ally and enemy are fighting side by side and I cast the Hemisphere to protect my ally from outside forces? In that case then it was a defensive measure for my ally and not offensive on my enemy so then it wouldn't break invisibility?To put it simply - it can't depend on the casting character's perceptions. Case in point: Invisible Spellcaster drops a hemispherical ice wall around a friend to protect him, but he is not aware of the invisible foe standing adjacent to the ally, who is also within the AoE of the hemisphere. Does Invis drop for the caster?Simply put, RAW it would (assuming the spell is considered aggressive, which some could argue - you are basically locking up that enemy whether it was your intention or not on casting the spell). The spell would have an opponent within its effect, which would trigger invis dropping.
Your perception is irrelevant, their perception is what really matters. If they are hostile you are an opponent (whether you know it or not). You don't know everything, if you accidentally do something to affect an opponent things may end up differently than you expected. Like casting a spell with an unknown opponent causing you to appear from your invisibility. The only person who knows "everything" would be the GM.
As to your second point: Since nothing says the hemisphere is hollow, I'd assume it is not and you cannot trap someone in it at all (the ice fails to form if someone or something occupies the space). If it were hollow then the part it did not touch would not part of its area and thus wouldn't break invisibility.
The walls of the hemisphere will be the same as the iceplane version "1 in thick per caster lv". So based off of that the rest of the area inside of the hemisphere would be hollow.
And if someone could fit inside the hollow space and you cast a hemisphere around them that would be affecting someone with in the area of a spell and you would lose your invisibility.
|
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.
Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.
If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.
Not at all. All of those things you mentioned are dangerous and unhealthy to the person you cast it on. Other than being inconvenient it does ZERO damage or cause any potential harm directly or indirectly to the trapped individual with Wall of Ice.
I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.
Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.
If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.
Okay, so what if the enemy is in a tunnel and you block off the tunnel with a a single plane of ice? It would be just as effective in trapping him (just as "harmful") as casting the hemisphere. Would invisibility drop in that situation?
|
|
Okay, so what if the enemy is in a tunnel and you block off the tunnel with a a single plane of ice? It would be just as effective in trapping him (just as "harmful") as casting the hemisphere. Would invisibility drop in that situation?I see the area of effect as the walls that make up the outside of the hemisphere.And that's wrong. Hence the 'contradictions' you're getting.
Look, you can't throw an offensive spell at someone and stay invisible. You attack someone, you pop back into visibility and take the very real possibility that they're going to stick a sword in your spleen. You're attacking them by trapping them in the ice just as sure as if you used a fireball, hold person, or resilient sphere.
If you use the regular Wall of Ice planes version you could construct a box around the enemy and that wouldn't break Invisibility (because its a plane not an area)No you cannot. Wall of ice is not shapable (s) It comes in a hemisphere with a very small radius or rather large "anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level" THATS the part of the spell description that says you can't turn it into a box to box people in.
How is that harmful? Wall of Ice is a defensive spell...especially the hemisphere that doesn't even do damage when you break it. If you use wall of stone and trap someone inside a wall of stone does that break invisibility? The only thing people are getting hung up on is that this spell has a different form that at higher levels could trap a medium creature.
Nothing I have read so far has proven to me that the hemisphere version of the spell is actually an AoE. As a matter of fact the spell section of the book that details Area of Effects doesn't even have an entry that fits the hemisphere description...especially a hollow one.
So in your opinion, Magic Missile and Lightning Bolt don't break Invisibility?
How do you determine damage in your games?
There are different ways to attack though, a dominate person is just as much of an attack as a fireball. [/QUOTE
]Dominate person which break an invisibility spell.
Any action you take that causes some to save not harmless, or you make attack roll/ CMB or dose them damage…It breaks the invisibility.
If you cut the rope that some one is on it breaks the invisibility.
|
|
If you're restricting someone you're making an offensive action. So yes surrounding someone with ice qualifies. Part of keeping magic in balance is always take the strict interpretation when faced with a choice.
The rule is offensive actions directed at a target break invisibility. There is no requirement for damage or contact. Since the clear intent here is to restrict a target that falls under the offensive rule.
But Invisibility says that indirect offensive actions do not break invisibility. I can cut a rope that holds a bridge the PCs are on and remain invisible, I can cut a rope and drop a trap on the PCs, I can even cast summon monster and direct them to attack without breaking invisibility. How are those actions any different than the hemisphere in wall of ice?
And the rules don't say "offensive actions". The rules say ATTACKS. So by your strict interpretation this is NOT an attack. Its actually the opposite...its a defensive option meant to bar someone from participation in the fight or mearly to slow them down as you escape (which in the situation where this question arose that was the intention of the spell).
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
|
|
There are different ways to attack though, a dominate person is just as much of an attack as a fireball.Dominate person which break an invisibility spell.
Any action you take that causes some to save not harmless, or you make attack roll/ CMB or dose them damage…It breaks the invisibility.
If you cut the rope that some one is on it breaks the invisibility.
That is wrong and is specifically used as an example in the spell Invisibility. Look it up.
And the rules don't say "offensive actions". The rules say ATTACKS. So by your strict interpretation this is NOT an attack
It does NOT say attack ROLL. It defines an attack as including a foe in an area of effect spell.
Okay, so what if the enemy is in a tunnel and you block off the tunnel with a a single plane of ice? It would be just as effective in trapping him (just as "harmful") as casting the hemisphere. Would invisibility drop in that situation?
As long as the wall is at least 5 feet away from him it works because you're not including him in the area.
|
|
And the rules don't say "offensive actions". The rules say ATTACKS. So by your strict interpretation this is NOT an attackIt does NOT say attack ROLL. It defines an attack as including a foe in an area of effect spell.
Okay, so what if the enemy is in a tunnel and you block off the tunnel with a a single plane of ice? It would be just as effective in trapping him (just as "harmful") as casting the hemisphere. Would invisibility drop in that situation?As long as the wall is at least 5 feet away from him it works because you're not including him in the area.
So does Channel Energy used to heal your allies break Invisibility if your foes are in the area when he channels? They are in the area.
If they were undead or harmed by negative energy? Yes.
RAI or RAW?
|
The hemisphere doesn't target an area including foes, though. In fact, it explicitly can't:
A wall of ice cannot form in an area occupied by physical objects or creatures
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.
Since invisibility's ruling on attacks is as above, a hemisphere trapping a foe doesn't qualify as an attack as far as invisibility is concerned. You can't compare this with Resilient Sphere, since, in this case, would explicitly target the foe.
Ossian666, AoEs break invisibility if they include a foe in their area of effect. They don't need to 'harm' anyone, however.
Which is the problem, a spells area is pretty strictly defined.
|
|
The hemisphere doesn't target an area including foes, though. In fact, it explicitly can't:A wall of ice cannot form in an area occupied by physical objects or creaturesThe 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.Since invisibility's ruling on attacks is as above, a hemisphere trapping a foe doesn't qualify as an attack as far as invisibility is concerned. You can't compare this with Resilient Sphere, since, in this case, would explicitly target the foe.
Ossian666, AoEs break invisibility if they include a foe in their area of effect. They don't need to 'harm' anyone, however.
Thats basically the angle I've been working this whole time but everyone keeps going back to it being an "AoE". In my mind it is not and since it doesn't do any harm I don't see the problem that everyone has with it working while Invisible...
But the hemisphere creates a radius affect. That makes it an aoe type spell. And if you place someone inside of it that would break your invisibility.
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.
effect
ef·fect/iˈfekt/Noun:A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
Invisibility gives 3 examples of targeting a creature with a spell as reasons to lose invisibility which are bolded above.
It affects the target trapped in the hemisphere. It is not indirect, it is intentional that would break invisibility.
ATTENTION: to those who think casting Wall of Ice would end Invisibility
Quote-
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. 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 what you say is true, then Wall of Ice must harm your opponent directly. It does not. This is simply truth.
C'mon, guys. I can cast Invisibility, sneak into a man's bower, and summon a Fiendish Dire Ape to maul him midst his silk bed sheets while remaining invisible. How can what you say be true, if the spells' description of the above is true?
It doesnt have to harm them, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
|
|
How does its effect include a foe? Its effect includes the squares that the ice is cast on.
The effect is a >10ft radius, ~1ft thick hemisphere. The effect doesn't include whatever it surrounds.
By your reasoning, a grease spell cast in front of a fighter in a dead end (forcing the fighter to go through it if he wants to move) will break invisibility.
You can make a wall of stone to do the same thing, except in a 2d ring. Are you going to make that break invisibility as well? Again, its effect is JUST the wall, not whatever it surrounds.
The difference is intent, you are affecting the target with the hemisphere, you are trapping them. That is targeting someone with a spells effect.
Grease is not directly affecting the warrior. And thus would not break Invisibility unless you directly target them.
Please note that people don't get a save to avoid the spell because they were targeted by it (the spell has no target, or even an area). What they get is a save to disrupt its formation.
It does not have an attack roll, it does not allow for a save against a target, it is not an area spell, it doesn't even allow for SR unless you walk through a breach. Ergo, you do not lose invisibility when casting this spell.
What is the purpose of the spell?
You are trying to restrict the movement of an enemy.
Are there any other spells that do this?
Yes. Entangle and Grease.
Would a cleric lose invisibility if she cast Entagle under someone?
Yes.
Would the wizard lose invisibility if he cast Grease under someone?
Yes.
Based on those two examples, I would rule that trapping an opponent under a hemisphere of ice is also an attack.
If my players wanted to do this, and I allowed it, I would turn it back on them. The BBEG hears about what they did and thinks it's a good idea. At the beginning of the battle, the invisible BBEG traps the archer under hemisphere of ice, then the fighter. Let the wizard and the rogue go toe to toe with the minions.
That being said, I would rule that trying to trap an opponent under a hemisphere of ice would constitute an attack.
-Aaron
The effect is a >10ft radius, ~1ft thick hemisphere. The effect doesn't include whatever it surrounds.That is not correct the effect is
Effect: anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level, or hemisphere of ice with a radius of up to 3 ft. + 1 ft./level
To place that spell you have to pick a grid intersection and it affects the indicated area.
The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack.
|
|
Effect: anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level, or hemisphere of ice with a radius of up to 3 ft. + 1 ft./level
The hemisphere is as hard to break through as the ice plane form, but it does not deal damage to those who go through a breach.
A sheet of strong, hard ice appears. The wall is 1 inch thick per caster level
ie. the effect is a hemisphere of ice with >=10ft radius, >=7inch thickness, with the centre a point on the grid. Said point isn't the area or the effect of the spell.
What is the purpose of the spell?
You are trying to restrict the movement of an enemy.
Are there any other spells that do this?
Yes. Entangle and Grease.
Would a cleric lose invisibility if she cast Entagle under someone?
Yes.
Would the wizard lose invisibility if he cast Grease under someone?
Yes.Based on those two examples, I would rule that trapping an opponent under a hemisphere of ice is also an attack.
What is the purpose of summon monster?
Casting grease or entangle where their effects do not include your opponent still restricts their movement.
If my players wanted to do this, and I allowed it, I would turn it back on them. The BBEG hears about what they did and thinks it's a good idea. At the beginning of the battle, the invisible BBEG traps the archer under hemisphere of ice, then the fighter. Let the wizard and the rogue go toe to toe with the minions.
Yes, yes, we all know the best possible way for a GM to punish player strategies would be to reciprocate in kind with all your NPCs.
The effect doesnt say its a 1"-20" thick hemisphere, it states that it is a hemisphere with a radius of 3' + 1'/caster lv. The thickness is only relevant to breaking out of said spell effect, it doesnt affect its area.
Casting grease or entangle where their effects do not include your opponent still restricts their movement.
Yes it does but it indirectly affects them, that is allowed under the guidelines of the Invisibility spell. The hemisphere version of Wall of Ice directly traps them within its area of effect.
It indirectly affects him but upon casting it does not directly affect him with the spell area. That is not the case with Wall of Ice when cast with the hemisphere option.
No bbt I do not believe it would.
It creates an area of effect which makes it an area of effect spell when used in that manner.
In the effect line it stats its area. It says nowhere in its area that it is a ring. It says its shaped like a hemisphere but the area is 3' + 1'/caster lv.
Radius is the area in which the spell takes affect. Someone in that area is affected by the effect of the spell. That is clearly a condition to make you become visible again.
For Darkness I would say no, but if an enemy was within 20' of you I would be tempted to say yes. But at that point I think I would be going against RAW. Because the target is an object touched.
So unless you tried to touch the creature I would say no.
@bbt- I can certainly see what you are saying. I havent ever ran into a situation where someone was using Invisibility and a Detect spell with an enemy in t he area. I am on the ropes with that combo. I would be inclined to not have that break Invisibility even though I know I wouldnt be being as consistant as I like to be. But it certainly seems to qualify though.