Character A casts silence and invisibility on himself then moves such that the area of effect of the silence includes a foe. This seems to suggest that the invisibility spell ends because the area of effect of a spell he casts includes a foe. Agree or disagree?
Character A casts silence on character B's weapon and invisibility on himself. Character B draws his weapon and moves such that the area of effect of the silence spell now includes another creature, a foe of the invisibility and silence caster. Invisibility on character A ends?
I do not believe Silence would end Invisibility unless cast directly at another creature.*
* For the purposes of this statement, a creature's attended gear may well count as the creature itself. Though that is debatable in its own right.
The spells are fine. No attack roll was made. The foe is free to leave the area unharmed. The foe might notice the absence of sound and start looking for you though.
The part that lead me to believe the invis. would end is this line in invis.:
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
The area of effect of the silence spell, even though it first does not include a foe, later does, by way of the target of silence moving closer to a foe etc.
You do not believe this would apply?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this instance, no I do not. If it were a fireball or a horrid wilting spell (something that is meant to be directed against the victims) than I would say yes, but silence isn't usually directed directly at a creature (though it can be), it is directed at an object or point in space.
In short, it's a matter of direct versus indirect. If I were to fireball a group of people, that is a direct attack. If I were to fireball a forest and start a forest fire that happened to kill a group of people, that is an indirect consequence, and my invisibility would remain in effect.
If I cast silence directly onto an enemy, that would be a direct attack (of sorts) and may well end my invisibility. However, if I cast it on a rock and sneak past him, I have only indirectly effected the guard (if at all), and thus maintain my cloak.
Replace "silence" with "light". If char A casts light on char B's weapon, and invisibility on himself, would invisibility end if char B's weapon was within 20' of a foe?
I would think not. To me, the same principles would apply to both.
Thanks guys. That's actually the answer I was hoping for but the wording seemed to suggest otherwise.
|
Invisibility explicitly says that if someone is standing on a rope bridge over a chasm, you can cut the rope and dump them into the chasm without breaking invisibility. You can cast indirect attack spells such as Summon Monster without breaking invisibility. You can cast area spells such as Bless that don't affect foes without breaking invisibility, even if the area includes foes.
I would expect that Silence, if cast on you or your equipment, would not be considered direct harm and would not break invisibility, even if used to put another person at a disadvantage.
Even if there is ambiguity, once the spell is cast there shouldn't be any adverse effect on the Invisibility to move the targeted object such that foes are included in the area of Silence.