@bbt- in regards to the question about the Darkness spell I am inclined to say it wouldnt break Invis at all. It only affects an object so any impairment of an enemy would be indirect. I should of thought about that one a little more before I answered so sorry about that.
I say with 100% certainty it does not. If summoning a monster does not end Invisibility, summoning a wall certainly does not either.
@Arlandor and Itchy: Invisibility only ends if a spell directly harms a foe and and targets them/includes them in its area of effect.
Direct harm = damage or drain to abilities or hit points or the application of penalties, negative effects, or the negation of positive ones.
Wall of Ice does none of these things. You get trapped in a dome of ice. Your speed does not change to "30ft., but not beyond the dome of ice". It is an indirect effect.
@Arlandor:
Quote:
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
It is an effect, not an area. The effect is a hemisphere of ice, in the given dimensions; not a hemisphere of ice in the given area.
Now, here I will admit is the most difficult argument against me.
Quote:
Each 10-foot square of wall has 3 hit points per inch of thickness...The hemisphere is as hard to break through as the ice plane form...
The thickness of the hemisphere is not, as you said, given in the Effect of the spell.
There is, as you say, around the fact that the hemisphere version is hollow. If, however, you want to claim that the hemisphere is solid, I would say that it has 3hp per inch of thickness. Since it's got a 10ft. radius, excluding the 5ft. square the target at it's center takes up, that's...180hp on each side.
Or, we could assume that "...The hemisphere is as hard to break through as the ice plane form...", that is to say, that it has as many hit points as the ice plane form, which would mean that it is, as said by those before me, 1" thick/level.
Sorry, folks. I can summon monsters without ending my spell, and I can summon walls, too.
Is there anyone here who would actually rule otherwise, by the way? I mean, we're all debating the indications of the RAW of this spell, right? No one thinks it's okay to conjure a giant squid on someone's face while invisible, but that it's not okay to conjure an ice cube cage around them, right?
|
As some one that DM's most of my home games. This is one of the things my players dislike. I enforce rule #1 DM has the finale word. This is how I run my table. feal free to run it any way your DM is willing it let you abuse it. Just not at my table.
Invisibility drops when your intent is to attack a foe.
This can be directly or indirectly.
As for wall of ice braking invisibility. Trapping someone is an attack. Just as much as casting force cage, and trapping them with it. They all drop invisibility. Because your intent is to attack them. That means your character's perception is to attack a foe.
Summon monster in my games will drop invisibility. Because your intent is to attack some one with it. That means your character's perception is to attack a foe.
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.
|
@calagnar: How do you define intent?
Two people can do the exact same thing, but with different intent.
I feel using intent as a basis for rulings to be messy.
There is no RAW precedent, and intent will be argued consistently.
Having to prove the Mens rea of every action sounds like terrible way to handle things.
If your players don't like it, I understand why.
@ quixote- direct harm is not the only way to end Invis, I have quoted it several times. Here it is again since you didnt take the time to read it -
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.
So you dont have to damage them with a spell but if you affect them with an effect from a spell it will drop Invis.
@bbt- in regards to the question about the Darkness spell I am inclined to say it wouldnt break Invis at all. It only affects an object so any impairment of an enemy would be indirect. I should of thought about that one a little more before I answered so sorry about that.
I don't mean to be inflammatory, I mean only to add to the debate, but you are being entirely inconsistent here with what you have been saying about the ice sphere. In fact, by your prior reasoning, darkness should be MORE eligible by RAW to break invisibility, since its actually an area spell in terms of being an emanation.
I don't think Wall of Ice used as a hemisphere can be considered an area of effect spell in terms of filling the entire area, because, as written, that would make it actually impossible to ever trap someone inside it... as the ice cannot actually form in such a way as to directly trap a creature by coming into contact with them as it forms. Either the scenario we are arguing about is entirely not possible to ever occur, or the WALL of ice is not a solid dome, but a dome that doesn't include the encapsulated spaces within its area... which seems to me to strongly be the way the spell is intended to work.
The spell doesn't actually directly impact the creatures on the other side of the wall... just because the other side is the "inside".
In any case, if you rule that Wall of Ice ends invisibility, so should darkness, or anything that remotely has the capability of inhibiting or hindering anyone in the area in any way. Invisibility should only end when direct harm comes of something... having your path of movement blocked is not "direct harm".
I disagree, using the hemisphere version of the spell to target someone is a direct attack. And as I have quoted several times from the Invis spell itself you dont have to do dam to attack someone. They are within the area it effects. Darkness on the otherhand is indirect you are casting it on an object, it is a secondary effect if they are in the area.
@Calagnar: no disrespect or anything, but this debate is not about house rules. We could sit here literally forever, stating our different preferences for this and that, and how we handle one situation or another differently from what the books strictly tell us to do. That's the point of the game.
The only conversation here is the one about the RAW.
@Arlandor: I have read the description of Invisibility many a time, before and after this thread, I assure you. I have also done my best to read every post carefully. Here's what I'm trying to prove:
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
I don't see what is so hard to grasp here. One sentence tells us what includes an "attack", the next goes on to clarify what does not count as an "attack".
According to the above, Wall of Ice could be argued to target a foe in its area, so it is an attack. But then, it does not cause harm directly, so it is not. It fails to meet all the requirements to be an attack.
There's nothing stating that we only need to satisfy one of the two requirements to be an attack.