At what point does a Coup de Grace break Invisibility?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Skylancer4 wrote:
Dust Raven wrote:
I don't believe the way RAW is worded leads to that conclusion. There is simply no way to apply "immediately" to an action that is not instantaneous. To me, the only way to interpret "immediately" is to begin any immediate event immediately after the action which triggers it, and immediately prior to any other actions. To have it occur at any other time defies logic and causality.

How does it not? The entire action is a long drawn out attack. The type of action which is specifically explained and called out to break the invisibility spell.

The game, mechanically doesn't split up or detail that the attack resolution breaks the spell, just the type of action that breaks the spell. Mechanically, as far as the spell is concerned, it doesn't matter if it is the attack is a full round multiple attack action, a single standard action attack, an AoO, or swift action attack. The intent/harmful outcome of the action, regardless of action cost, is what breaks the spell effect. Immediately is exactly that, immediate. Once you choose to make a harmful action, regardless of duration or action cost, the spell effect is broken. Your choice to commiting such an action is what breaks the spell effect, resolution is irrelevant.

Nothing in invisibility's descriptions states, implies or hints that choice, or committing or any other such things is what ends the spell. It's the attack, the actual action. An action which, until complete, quite literally hasn't happened yet. Nothing to split. Either an attack has, or has not occurred. Invisibility is not Schrödinger's Spell. So if the attack is not complete, you are still invisible.

Dark Archive

Icyshadow wrote:

This made me think about a related issue.

Does a Rogue get a Sneak Attack once he attacks from Invisibility, even if said attack breaks the Invisibility effect?

Yes, but if making multiple attacks as part of a full attack action, only the first attack denies the target his DEX bonus to AC.

Silver Crusade

The game system is that full-round actions (such as coup de grace) begin and end entirely during that creature's turn, unlike a one-round casting time.

It takes enough of your effort to deny you a move action, but it doesn't take the entire six seconds. If it worked like a one-round casting time you'd use a full-round action to start the CdG but it wouldn't be complete until just before your turn on the next round. If this were the case, after the full-round action to start the CdG, you'd then be visible and provoke normally.

But a full-round action is not a one-round casting time; it starts and ends on the same action! Before that action the subject is invisible, after that action he's visible. The CdG action triggers the loss of invisiblity, and anything that happens before that action (as would an AoO) happens while the subject is still invisible!


When you attack someone while invisible, you catch them flat footed. When CDGing, you're catching the people around the sleeping guy flat footed.

I don't see why this is even a question. No AOO.

Grand Lodge

1) Invisible.

2) Coup de Grace.

3) Invisibility ends.

In that order. As per RAW.


Whoa, I think that hair is split almost to infinity.

Paizo should define the attack phase just like in MTG, with a lifo stack construct and Interrupts and whatnot.

Would really benefit the game...NOT.

Grand Lodge

This one is easy.

Some people like to complicate things for the sake of complicating them.


Dust Raven wrote:
Nothing in invisibility's descriptions states, implies or hints that choice, or committing or any other such things is what ends the spell. It's the attack, the actual action. An action which, until complete, quite literally hasn't happened yet. Nothing to split. Either an attack has, or has not occurred. Invisibility is not Schrödinger's Spell. So if the attack is not complete, you are still invisible.

Actually it states it in the spell description. I'll quote it so you can read it.

Mechanically the action is the attack.

Character is invisible.
Character casts shocking grasp.
Character moves up to opponent.
Character declares a touch attack on opponent who is denied their DEX due to invisibility/Invisibility ends.
Attack roll resolves.

Invisibility wrote:
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

It doesn't say "on successful hit," or "successfully dealing damage" or any of the numerous other ways it would have to be written for it to work the way you think it does. Mechanically declaring you are CdG'ing is making an attack, and RAW, making an attack breaks invisibility.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

1) Invisible.

2) Coup de Grace.

3) Invisibility ends.

In that order. As per RAW.

Typically full round actions results don't "happen" or last until right before the performing characters turn begins again. In this case it makes a difference.

1) Invisible
2) Declare your CdG (begins the full round action)
3) Invis pops due to commiting an 'attack' action
3a) Any threatening opponents could now take AoO and any opponents who move within threatening range before the CdG completes could take an AoO.
3b) (right before CdG'ing characters next round) CdG ends, damage and effect resolution.
4) CdG'ing characters next turn begins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

1) Invisible.

2) Coup de Grace.

3) Invisibility ends.

In that order. As per RAW.

Typically full round actions results don't "happen" or last until right before the performing characters turn begins again. In this case it makes a difference.

No...typically a full round action is completed during a character's turn. A character can only perform a 5' step, free, or swift action while doing so. Making your full iterative attacks is a full round action.

Casting a spell with a 1 round casting time is what you are describing. They are not the same thing.


Skylancer4 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

1) Invisible.

2) Coup de Grace.

3) Invisibility ends.

In that order. As per RAW.

Typically full round actions results don't "happen" or last until right before the performing characters turn begins again. In this case it makes a difference.

1) Invisible
2) Declare your CdG (begins the full round action)
3) Invis pops due to commiting an 'attack' action
3a) Any threatening opponents could now take AoO and any opponents who move within threatening range before the CdG completes could take an AoO.
3b) (right before CdG'ing characters next round) CdG ends, damage and effect resolution.
4) CdG'ing characters next turn begins.

You're confusing a full-round action (which simply is a standard action + move action) with a spell that has a casttime of "1 round".

Full round actions end at the same turn that they were started.

Silver Crusade

Skylancer4 wrote:
Dust Raven wrote:
Nothing in invisibility's descriptions states, implies or hints that choice, or committing or any other such things is what ends the spell. It's the attack, the actual action. An action which, until complete, quite literally hasn't happened yet. Nothing to split. Either an attack has, or has not occurred. Invisibility is not Schrödinger's Spell. So if the attack is not complete, you are still invisible.

Actually it states it in the spell description. I'll quote it so you can read it.

Mechanically the action is the attack.

Character is invisible.
Character casts shocking grasp.
Character moves up to opponent.
Character declares a touch attack on opponent who is denied their DEX due to invisibility/Invisibility ends.
Attack roll resolves.

Invisibility wrote:
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
It doesn't say "on successful hit," or "successfully dealing damage" or any of the numerous other ways it would have to be written for it to work the way you think it does. Mechanically declaring you are CdG'ing is making an attack, and RAW, making an attack breaks invisibility.

Rubbish!

Saying you're attacking is not attacking! Actually attacking is attacking.

Not since 2nd edition has 'declaring an attack' been a game mechanic! If you don't actually attack then you don't lose your invisibility. If you allowed an AoO to kill the subject then the subject would never attack, therefore never become visible, therefore never provoke.

No-one thinks you have to actually hit to count as making an attack.

According to the wording of the spell, merely including a creature you perceive as an enemy in the area of effect of a Detect Magic counts as an attack for the purposes of making you lose your invisibility. But it's ridiculous to think that just saying that I plan to detect magic makes you visible! Only actually doing it makes you visible.

If I was subject to the Invisibility spell and cast Magic Missile I would be invisible before I cast and visible after I cast. The casting time is irrelavent; the duration of Magic Missile is instantaneous! There is a before, there is an after, there is no 'during'. No matter the action type of performing a CdG it is in game terms instantaneous. You can't interrupt a CdG halfway through it; you can interrupt it before it happens, but you're still invisible then.


I double checked the PRD before I posted that because I know the spell worked that way:

Full-Round Actions wrote:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

If an invisible creature moves up to a helpless creature it is using the 'use a standard action to start a full round action' rule to start the CdG. In a vaccuum yes we can say you start off invisible next to the helpless creature, but in practice that typically doesn't happen. I'm describing that scenario (following the shocking grasp example I was detailing above).

If we were assuming next to helpless from the get go:

1) Invisible
2) Declare CdG
2a) Invis drops
2b) AoOs occur (as is still a 'full round action' and not an instanteous effect)
5) Resolution of CdG and the end of the performing characters turn

Regardless, damage done doesn't foul the CdG like some other CMs so it will go through being hit (unless KO'd I suppose).


@Malachi

If RAW is rubbish, you're in the wrong forum. Head over to the suggestions/homebrew or someplace of the sort please.

Silver Crusade

Skylancer4 wrote:

@Malachi

If RAW is rubbish, you're in the wrong forum. Head over to the suggestions/homebrew or someplace of the sort please.

It's not RAW that 'declaring an attack' is an 'attack'.

In this entire thread you pretended it's RAW that merely making a purely mental decision to attack is the equivalent of making an attack!

I'm saying that's rubbish!

Prove me wrong! Quote the RAW that makes these things equivalent.


Skylancer4 wrote:

@Malachi

If RAW is rubbish, you're in the wrong forum. Head over to the suggestions/homebrew or someplace of the sort please.

Actually, Malachi has it right by RAW.

Quote:
Invisibility wrote:

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

It doesn't say "on successful hit," or "successfully dealing damage" or any of the numerous other ways it would have to be written for it to work the way you think it does. Mechanically declaring you are CdG'ing is making an attack, and RAW, making an attack breaks invisibility.

This is incorrect. Performing a CdG is making an attack that will break invisibility when you actually make that attack. Declaring at the beginning of a round that you will be making an attack at some point in the round is NOT actually making an attack. You don't have to successfully hit or deal damage to make an attack, but you do have to act to make an attack, not just declare you're going to act.


Let's say an invisible PC swings a sword at an ogre as a standard action attack. The invisibility bestows several benefits to this attack:

PRD invisibility bonuses wrote:
An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).

So, according to some of the logic in this thread, simply the act of making an attack breaks invisibility -- not the actual hit from that attack. If that were true, none of the above bonuses from invisibility would ever apply.

PRD attack roll wrote:
If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Invisible PC swings at ogre. Invisible PC becomes visible before the actual hit. Formerly invisible PC rolls an attack. The ogre keeps his Dexterity to AC and the PC doesn't gain the bonus to hit.

How do you gain a bonus from an ability that isn't active? You can't benefit from invisibility after it is gone. You can't make an attack roll *before* you hit -- it's part of the action to determine *whether* you hit or not.


Skylancer I am still waiting for proof that the intent changed from 3.5 to PF. This matters since the game is backwards compatible. You can't just say a rule changed without proof. Well you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the 3.5 FAQ Skip Williams was asked:-

'Just when do so-called full-round actions take place?
Does a sorcerer’s heightened spell (or any other spell with a
metamagic feat applied) go off on the sorcerer’s turn, or not
until just before the sorcerer’s action on the following turn?
What about other full-round actions? The coup de grace
has generated a lot of problems in our campaign. When is
this action finished? If it’s not over until just before the
attacker’s next action, can the target’s friends save her,
perhaps by getting in the way or dragging her out of reach?
'

Skip answered:-

'Any full-round action takes place entirely during the acting
character’s turn. That is, the action begins and ends during the
acting character’s turn in the initiative order. Though taking a
full-round action leaves you no time to move (except, possibly,
a 5-foot step) it does not continue into the next round in the
same way a spell with a casting time of 1 round does. A fullround
action is quicker than a 1-round casting time.
Delivering a coup de grace requires a full-round action, not
1 round. The coup de grace is delivered during the attacker’s
turn, and the target’s allies can do little about it except to drag
the target out of reach before the attacker can act (this requires
the allies to act before the attacker does during the current
round), or fell the attacker with the attacks of opportunity the
attacker triggers when delivering the coup de grace (this
requires the allies to be in position to threaten the attacker).
Since attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that
triggers them, they can prevent a coup de grace if they drop the
attacker. Also, a helpless character’s allies could ready an
action to attack anyone that tries to hurt the helpless ally, but
since doing so requires the ready action, they’re usually better
off dragging their helpless ally to a place of safety.'

Delivering a coup de grace triggers an AoO, and that AoO, by RAW, happens before the action that triggered it.

If the subject of the Invisibility spell performs a coup de grace, then delivering that attack triggers two things; an AoO and the invisibility falling away. But it does not alter the fact that the AoO provoked occurs before that trigger, therefore when the subject is still invisible.

Invisibility grants total concealment from those unable to see invisible. Total Concealment wrote:-

'You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.'

Dark Archive

Skylancer4 wrote:
Dust Raven wrote:
Nothing in invisibility's descriptions states, implies or hints that choice, or committing or any other such things is what ends the spell. It's the attack, the actual action. An action which, until complete, quite literally hasn't happened yet. Nothing to split. Either an attack has, or has not occurred. Invisibility is not Schrödinger's Spell. So if the attack is not complete, you are still invisible.

Actually it states it in the spell description. I'll quote it so you can read it.

Mechanically the action is the attack.

Character is invisible.
Character casts shocking grasp.
Character moves up to opponent.
Character declares a touch attack on opponent who is denied their DEX due to invisibility/Invisibility ends.
Attack roll resolves.

Invisibility wrote:
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
It doesn't say "on successful hit," or "successfully dealing damage" or any of the numerous other ways it would have to be written for it to work the way you think it does. Mechanically declaring you are CdG'ing is making an attack, and RAW, making an attack breaks invisibility.

You are right the spell description doesn't say on successful hit or any such term using successful, and I never said it did. Also, declaring you are making an attack is not attack. It is declaring you are making an attack. Attacking is attacking.

The spell's description doesn't say "when an attack is declared" or any of the numerous other way it would have to be written for it to work the way you think it does. Mechanically, attacking isn't attacking until it is resolved (successful or otherwise), and RAW, invisibility isn't broken until that attack is resolved.


Malachi has all bases covered.

To anyone concerned about "declaring an attack":

Spoiler:
I would spank a GM if he did the following:

GM: It's your turn, what do you do.
Player: I am gonna CdG the helpless fiend next to me.
GM: Ok, you are becoming visible, the other not so helpless fiend next to you hits you with an AoO *rolls to hit*.
Player: But, I haven't done anything yet!
GM: You declared an attack!
Player: Yes, but only so you know what I am gonna do.
GM: Regardless...

See? The whole "declaring an attack" is a technical necessity to play this game and not a rule anywhere.

Grand Lodge

What? Is Pathfinder now Magic the Gathering?

When did this "declare attacks" thing come in to play?


Since someone listened to my previous DM, apparently.

Why do I say this? Because Micman's example sounds like what he would have done.


wraithstrike wrote:

Skylancer I am still waiting for proof that the intent changed from 3.5 to PF. This matters since the game is backwards compatible. You can't just say a rule changed without proof. Well you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

Ask the paizo crew if all the 3.5 FAQs stand. Part of the entire reason PFRPG was published was because of rules that they didn't like or believe should work a certain way. PFRPG is its own game based on 3.5 structure, a FAQ that was made in 3.5 does not necessarily stand in PFRPG. Deal with RAW not a FAQ for another game that PFRPG [i]could[/i ] work with. They are seperate games, you cannot use the 3.5 ruling as a reason for something to work a certain way. I'm not saying it couldn't work that way, I'm saying RAW says one thing and then there are certain assumptions being made that RAW doesn't back up by certain posters.

If you want to use the FAQ in your home game, go for it. But if you bring that to an organized play game you will be told that it means nothing in a PFRPG game.

A player stating they are taking an action is the same as the action occuring (barring something preventing it). Mechanically the implementation of the action is when the player decides his character does something. As such, aggressive harmful actions which break invisibility occur in a meta game situation and are then 'done' or intiated in game. There are two levels that have to be considered, the in game and the out of game.


Why are there so many people here who assume everyone is part of the Organized Play?

Grand Lodge

This is not the homebrew section, so it is assumed that people are looking for RAW answers.

PFS is RAW to a fault, and is enjoyed by many.

Nobody assumes houserules are in play.


@Skylancer
Should we review your post:

Quote:


1) Invisible
2) Declare CdG
2a) Invis drops
2b) AoOs occur (as is still a 'full round action' and not an instanteous effect)
5) Resolution of CdG and the end of the performing characters turn

Where is this "Declare CdG" thing in the rules?

CdG is a full round action which takes place during your turn in it's entirety. There is no subset, the whole full round action is a solid block as far as the rules are concerned.

Breaking up the full round action as you did is simply not in the rules at all therefore the question that started this threat is invalid.

Even the rules for AoO do not state that the AoO messes with the full round action in any way because the AoO explicitely happens BEFORE the whole thing in order to make a break up unecessary.

And I hope we can all agree upon that BEFORE the full round action starts the attacker is still invisible therefore foiling the AoO.


A player 'declares' an action, a character does the action.

A player saying 'I attack' is the same as the character attacking.

The rules say when an invisible creature performs a harmful action the spell drops. The character does an action when the player declares it happening barring immediate or readied actions which prevent the action resolution. Taking a AoO doesn't prevent a CdG. The intent of the OP was to see if being invisible prevented the AoO, which mechanically RAW, it doesn't.

People can say that an attack doesn't break invisibility until it hits until they are blue in the face or type it until their fingers bleed, but that isn't what RAW says. They can complain it makes no sense fluff wise or in reality and give possible examples and detailed walk throughs to make sense of how it 'should' work BUT it doesn't matter. RAW is often at odds with how something 'should' work because it isn't a simulationist game, it is a set of rules laid out to get from A to B, or to make C happen.

RAW says if you are invisible and attack a creature they have XYZ penalties and/or you have ABC bonuses and gain the ability to add EFG to your attack.
Invisibility says it is broken when the character attacks/does a harmful action.
An action occurs, in game by the character, when the player declares it to happen. Roll that all up together and when an invisble characters player says 'I CdG the npc for my action', the rules for invisibility kick in and the spell drops as it is a harmful action as the character performs the stated attack.

I agree that they are invisible before the action, and if that were the only requirement for avoiding the AoO we'd let it go. But it isn't. Just because you actions are stated and occur on your 'turn' which is basically handled instantly, doesn't mean that they are 'instant' in game. A full round action takes up the entire time alotted to a character in the 6 seconds of game time. Because it isn't an instant effect, once the invisibiity breaks from the intiation of a harmful action the character is still provoking attacks during the execution of the action, as per the table.
If the rules said on 'hit' it wouldn't matter, a CdG'ing character would be protected until after the attack resolved. What the rules say is invis drops immediately when a character does a harmful action and the harmful action initiates on the players statement of what their character is doing.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So in your game, when a character attacks from being invisible, he appears before he attacks.... so a rogue attacking from invisible does not get sneak attack damage.


Skylancer4 wrote:
...People can say that an attack doesn't break invisibility until it hits until they are blue in the face or type it until their fingers bleed, but that isn't what RAW says....

You are in error. RAW doesn't split up an action any more.

So when you CdG an opponent you do that and in the same time Invis breaks - RAW there are no smaller increments, it happens simultaneously.

If you mean that you think this is stupid and you would rule that as soon as the attacker bows down to set the blade to the jugular that this is the moment the Invis break and this would still give the defender time to make an AoO then fine, maks a certain sense.

But it isn't RAW in the slightest!


I think we need flavor to work this out:

CdG:
Invisible character wants to make an CdG, lines up his sword in line with the enemy's neck to make sure his strike kills, invisibility drops, AoOs occur, character finishes CdG.

Single Attack:
Invisible character swings sword hard at enemy, invisibility drops, enemy unable to respond to visible character before sword hits, +2 attack, no dex.

Can't say it is RAW exactly but it makes sense to me.

Dark Archive

Skylancer4 wrote:

A player 'declares' an action, a character does the action.

A player saying 'I attack' is the same as the character attacking.

The rules say when an invisible creature performs a harmful action the spell drops. The character does an action when the player declares it happening barring immediate or readied actions which prevent the action resolution. Taking a AoO doesn't prevent a CdG. The intent of the OP was to see if being invisible prevented the AoO, which mechanically RAW, it doesn't.

Only it doesn't. If you want to run a game with the completely not RAW rule that player talks = character acts, that's fine, but not RAW. RAW, invisibility end when the character attacks (or takes some other directly offensive action). Attacks is an action, it's something that happens. It's not an intent, or a declaration, and even if it was, by your own words a declaration is also an action. So we only have 2 options.

Invisibility Drops, then the character attacks/player declares attack
or
The character attacks/player declares attack, then invisibility drops.

In either case, you've already said the player declaring the action is the same as the character performing that action, so you cannot insert any even between them. They are the same thing.

So which happens first? RAW they happen at the same time (effectively), but nothing happens at the same time because this is a game. So which happens first?

I think it's obvious.

Quote:
People can say that an attack doesn't break invisibility until it hits until they are blue in the face or type it until their fingers bleed, but that isn't what RAW says.

You are still right. That is not RAW. It is also NOT what anyone has said.

Quote:

RAW says if you are invisible and attack a creature they have XYZ penalties and/or you have ABC bonuses and gain the ability to add EFG to your attack.

Invisibility says it is broken when the character attacks/does a harmful action.
An action occurs, in game by the character, when the player declares it to happen. Roll that all up together and when an invisble characters player says 'I CdG the npc for my action', the rules for invisibility kick in and the spell drops as it is a harmful action as the character performs the stated attack.

You still can't have it both ways. If the action occurs when the player declares his intent, then invisibility must drop after. It simply can't drop before the player says he's attacking.

Quote:
Just because you actions are stated and occur on your 'turn' which is basically handled instantly, doesn't mean that they are 'instant' in game. A full round action takes up the entire time alotted to a character in the 6 seconds of game time.

Again, you can't have it both ways. We're talking about how the game handles it, not how it makes sense or what we visualize when playing. Mechanically, a CdG is resolved instantly. You say you do it, you do it, it's done. The only exception is when some other action interrupts it, such as an AoO, or a readied action. RAW, a spell ending is neither of these. So RAW, the spell ending takes place after.


Dennis Baker wrote:
So in your game, when a character attacks from being invisible, he appears before he attacks.... so a rogue attacking from invisible does not get sneak attack damage.

No, the rogue gets the sneak attack because before the attack was declared the condition of 'invisible' was valid. The target was denied their dexterity to the attacker. Declared action occurs and resolves at that moment. Before that declaration invisible was 'true' and the action resolves around what events led up to that point. Further attacks after that moment would not gain the benefit as prior to the attack the 'invisible' condition would not be met after the initial attack. This follows what is stated to happen in RAW.

The game constantly makes checks about conditions at any instance of game time. When an attack is made by an unarmed combatant, the game checks to see if they have the IUS feat, if they don't we go back before that 'moment' and resolve the AoO. When an attacker makes an attack, the game 'pauses' and we go through a laundry list of items, is the attacker/defender sickened, blinded, etc. And apply appropriate modifiers. This is just another of those situations.

We are gaming, and in the game world we have an invisibile character standing next to a bored guard npc. The players turn comes up and he/she states the character is going to stab the guard with both main and off hand weapons. We now know what in game action is going occur, we check the conditions of what will happen mechanically. The npc is denied their dex mod because prior to the attack (declared action) the attacker was invisible. At that instant the invisiblity drops and we resolve the declared action with the conditions we had leading up to it. Now we need to check condtions again as the off hand weapon attack resolves. This time prior to the attack there is no invisibility leading up to this moment, the attack resolves 'normally' now.


Skylancer4 wrote:
At that instant the invisiblity drops and we resolve the declared action with the conditions we had leading up to it.

You only get a +2 to an attack roll if you're invisible. If you're not invisible, you don't get a +2 to attack rolls.

The condition of invisibility doesn't grant a bonus when it's not active.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I know what the issue is. Skylancer is interpreting the action thusly: An in-game round is equivalent to 6 seconds of in-game time. CdG is a full-round action, meaning it takes 6 seconds to complete. Invisible character begins round next to a helpless defender. PC declares he is making a CdG. The invisibility spell reads "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature." CdG is considered an attack, but is not immediately resolved like a typical attack roll, therefor there is a full 6 seconds for enemies to react because the attack takes so long to make. Sky, this is my interpretation of your side of the argument. If I'm incorrect I apologize.

Personally, I'm of the other school of thought. A CdG is still just a single attack, and the actual "attack" portion of the action is resolved instantaneously. It is my opinion the CdG was made a full-round action for two reasons: One, because the very idea of a CdG suggests you take the time to carefully place your strike to hit a vital artery, pierce a major organ, etc. and that takes more time than just sticking someone like a pig. Two, game mechanic balance. If the CdG was not a full-round action you would have teams of rogues and casters lined up along the edge of the battle, the casters trying to incapacitate enemies and the rogues waiting to sprint out and stabby stabby.

My interpretation of the CdG is that 3 seconds are spent lining up the strike and another 3 seconds actually making the attack, just like always, and the actual event of the blade striking home is what breaks the invisibility.

This is all RAI, obviously.


You are correct about the interpretation. As I said earlier because of the wording of invisibility, RAW causes it to not work 'properly' in some peoples opinion in cases of aggressive actions with extended execution times. Because of the necessity of loosely defined actions for the type of game mechanics used, there are no distictions made for 'lining up' your attack and the execution of the attack. Everything involved in the 'attack' is rolled up in a free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full round action. The initiation of an aggressive action breaks the spell, initiation of such an action is when a player declares the action to occur.

I can't speak to RAI, and as no one posting here is part of the Paizo staff capable of making the call as to 'intent' neither can they legitimately. As it stands, RAW that is how it would occur without a FAQ/errata to further define how the invisibility spell breaks. I have no problem running it differently in home games, but as this is the Rules Forum, hashing out the RAW is what should be primarily focused on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

1) Invisible.

2) Coup de Grace.

3) Invisibility ends.

In that order. As per RAW.

Here's the real question... why would you bother? CDG can only be applies against a helpless or totally unaware (as in sleeping) target. You can't CDG someone just because you're sneaking on him invisibly, you can get sneak attack on said target.

If you're target is someone that can be subjected to a CDG, you don't need invisibility. If your helpless target is being guarded by someone, you take that someone out first. The reason there isn't rules on this because this is one of the million idiotic corner cases that would make your core rules set the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica if you were going to write for all of them.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Skylancer4 wrote:
The initiation of an aggressive action breaks the spell, initiation of such an action is when a player declares the action to occur.

An action that involves attacking (the attack action, full-attack action, and so on) is not the same thing as "an attack". If it's difficult to see the distinction, it's useful to look at full attacks where it's easier to perceive.

Quote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

As per the description, the attacks are resolved one at a time. Therefore, "declaring a full-attack action" does not mean you're committed to attacking a certain creature until you actually resolve the attack.

With spells the distinction is even more obvious. Pathfinder SRD: "You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell." So if you're casting a spell as a full-round action, for example, there's no way you turn visible immediately when you declare you're casting the spell because the target(s) haven't even been assigned yet!

In other words, you attack when you make an attack, not when you declare an action that enables you to attack. The previous examples illustrate the point that when you use an action that enables you to attack, the entire duration of the action does not count as attacking, but rather, the attack occurs either at an unspecified point after the action has been declared (full attack), or when casting is already completed (spells).


RAI that might be the case. RAW again, there is no distinction. Mechanically an attack of any sort is packaged up into an action. Harmful action is the trigger for Invisibility to drop.

The spell breaking is triggered off of 'intent' of an action not resolution. Rules as written, once your character goes from considering an attack to the actual implementation of that attack the spell 'pops.' When does a character start to do something? When their player declares their actions. If the action involved causes harm, the clause of the spell comes into play.

It doesn't matter who you are attacking, or even if you know the action will end up being harmful. If a rogue is hiding in an empty room, and a clueless invisible caster Fireballs the room, invisibility drops. If you declare a full round action to make attacks, you are making an attack, so invisibility drops, regardless of if you attack someone once or multiple times. You may choose the target of the spell at the tail end of casting it, but that whole action is still a harmful action as far as invisibility and game mechanics are written up.

This isn't me saying this is how it's supposed to work. This is me saying RAW for this and similar situations isn't what we expect to happen.


Skylancer4 wrote:

You are correct about the interpretation. As I said earlier because of the wording of invisibility, RAW causes it to not work 'properly' in some peoples opinion in cases of aggressive actions with extended execution times. Because of the necessity of loosely defined actions for the type of game mechanics used, there are no distictions made for 'lining up' your attack and the execution of the attack. Everything involved in the 'attack' is rolled up in a free, immediate, swift, move, standard, or full round action. The initiation of an aggressive action breaks the spell, initiation of such an action is when a player declares the action to occur.

I can't speak to RAI, and as no one posting here is part of the Paizo staff capable of making the call as to 'intent' neither can they legitimately. As it stands, RAW that is how it would occur without a FAQ/errata to further define how the invisibility spell breaks. I have no problem running it differently in home games, but as this is the Rules Forum, hashing out the RAW is what should be primarily focused on.

Actually the rules forum is here so we can find out how the rules actually work. Normally RAW matches RAI. When it does not we use dev quotes, problems and inconsistencies caused by the rules, and precedence, which is why I brought up a rogue being able to sneak attack earlier.


Not that you are correct by RAW because it says what that you being invisible gives you certain advantage such as +2 to attack, etc. You have yet to prove that the invis drop before the attack is made. We know what how the rule worked from 3.5, and the wording has not changed. If the wording is the same the meaning is the same also unless a PF dev says otherwise. What we do know is that you can't take an AoO against someone you can't perceive. Yeah CdG is a full round action, but there nothing saying the "attack" portion last the entire round. I am sure it does not take 6 seconds to make one swing.

AoO's are triggered from your guard being down, which does not happen until you start the action. As an example if I declare I am going to do ____ which would draw an AoO, and someone readies an action to cast hold person on me if I _____, and then I fail my will save then I never even started to ______ so I would not provoke an AoO. In short, no action, not AoO.

That means the intent of the action is not what triggers it.

Quote:
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

As you can see it says when performed, not when declared.

Grand Lodge Contributor

Skylancer4 wrote:
RAI that might be the case. RAW again, there is no distinction. Mechanically an attack of any sort is packaged up into an action. Harmful action is the trigger for Invisibility to drop.

Unless I specifically say otherwise, I always discuss rules questions from a RAW point of view. And that is why I quote rules text. (I added the numbers below to make referencing easier.)

Quoth the SRD: "(1) 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. (2) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. (3) 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. (4) If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. (5) Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area."

Quote:
The spell breaking is triggered off of 'intent' of an action not resolution. Rules as written, once your character goes from considering an attack to the actual implementation of that attack the spell 'pops.' When does a character start to do something? When their player declares their actions. If the action involved causes harm, the clause of the spell comes into play.

Intent is not mentioned in the SRD quote above. See (1) - only actually attacking a creature (or using a spell vs a "foe") breaks the spell. If you mistake a statue for a creature and intend to attack the "creature", the spell does not end despite your intent because you attacked an unattended object (see (2)).

Quote:
It doesn't matter who you are attacking, or even if you know the action will end up being harmful.

The first part is incorrect - see (1), if you target a "foe" with a spell, your invisibility ends. But if your fireball only affects your allies, or it only affects unattended objects, you're still invisible. So who you're attacking is VERY important. (Weapon attacks are an exception, though. Attacking "any creature" ends the effect.)

Quote:
If a rogue is hiding in an empty room, and a clueless invisible caster Fireballs the room, invisibility drops.

Correct. Assuming the rogue is your foe, not one of your party members, the spell does indeed end. The irony here is that you just said it's the intent that matters, but in this example of yours, it's not the wizard's intent that ends the spell. Maybe his intent was to illuminate the empty room for a moment with the fireball. But if a foe happens to be in the room, he becomes visible regardless of his intent.

Quote:
If you declare a full round action to make attacks, you are making an attack, so invisibility drops, regardless of if you attack someone once or multiple times.

Incorrect. The spell description says invisibility drops only if you target a creature with an attack. It is possible to attack objects without breaking the spell. Since you don't necessarily even know how you're going to use your attacks before the first one is resolved, it's evident that declaring a full attack does not end the spell. It's one of the attacks that ends the spell if - and only if - the attacker targets a creature. Invisible Fighty McFighter has bab +6 and thus 2 attacks. He uses his first attack to hit the McGuffin that feeds negative energy to skeletons. It's an attack vs an object (and an indirect attack vs the skeletons, see (3)), so his invisibility doesn't end. His second attack may or may not end the spell, but that's a different story. Declaring a full attack does not end the spell.

Quote:
You may choose the target of the spell at the tail end of casting it, but that whole action is still a harmful action as far as invisibility and game mechanics are written up.

Incorrect. For example, an invisible cleric casting a Cure Light Wounds spell... is that a harmful spell/action? No, of course not, ... or is it? Ask a ghoul, he might disagree. Let's say the cleric casts the spell and holds the charge until next round, when he'll decide whether to heal his ally or hurt a ghoul depending on the situation. So when does he turn visible? The moment he begins casting the spell or the moment he actually touches someone who's harmed by positive energy? (The latter is true - that's when it actually becomes an harmful action/attack.)

Quote:
This isn't me saying this is how it's supposed to work. This is me saying RAW for this and similar situations isn't what we expect to happen.

Please quote the relevant parts of rules text when making RAW arguments. Otherwise it'll just look like you're offering your interpretations of the rules. Interpretations =/= RAW.


Serpent wrote:

Unless I specifically say otherwise, I always discuss rules questions from a RAW point of view. And that is why I quote rules text. (I added the numbers below to make referencing easier.)

Quoth the SRD: "(1) 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. (2) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. (3) 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. (4) If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. (5) Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area."
.
Quote:
The spell breaking is triggered off of 'intent' of an action not resolution. Rules as written, once your character goes from considering an attack to the actual implementation of that attack the spell 'pops.' When does a character start to do something? When their player declares their actions. If the action involved causes harm, the clause of the spell comes into play.

.

Intent is not mentioned in the SRD quote above. See (1) - only actually attacking a creature (or using a spell vs a "foe") breaks the spell. If you mistake a statue for a creature and intend to attack the "creature", the spell does not end despite your intent because you attacked an unattended object (see (2)).

Intent isn't EVER mentioned in RAW. Attacking a creature breaks the spell, RAW, you marked it in your own post. An attack is an action, actions are categorized into free, immediate, swift, move, standard or full round. These are the ONLY actions a character has access to mechanically to do ANYTHING with. The 'attack' is an action of some sort, the spell breaks when an attack is made RAW. As the game is completely and totally composed of a strict set of actions, when such an action occurs (one that contains an attack), the spell breaks. There is no distinction for when an attack occurs in a specified action mechanically in the game. If there is no distinction then the action in which the 'attack' occurs is what we have left to refer to to dictate when the spell breaks.

Quote:
The first part is incorrect - see (1), if you target a "foe" with a spell, your invisibility ends. But if your fireball only affects your allies, or it only affects unattended objects, you're still invisible. So who you're attacking is VERY important. (Weapon attacks are an exception, though. Attacking "any creature" ends the effect.)

I agree, and while I might not had been as specific as I should have been posting from my phone in the short time I had at that point, this point changes nothing. If you attack a 'foe' with a harmful spell regardless of whether you know it or not the spell breaks. That means the spell effects are not totally reliant on the casters perceptions. There is a meta game distinction being made. If you cause harm to someone 'unintentionally' that you don't consider an ally, it breaks the spell. This part is basically irrelevant to the question on hand, when does the spell break?

Quote:
Incorrect. The spell description says invisibility drops only if you target a creature with an attack. It is possible to attack objects without breaking the spell. Since you don't necessarily even know how you're going to use your attacks before the first one is resolved, it's evident that declaring a full attack does not end the spell. It's one of the attacks that ends the spell if - and only if - the attacker targets a creature. Invisible Fighty McFighter has bab +6 and thus 2 attacks. He uses his first attack to hit the McGuffin that feeds negative energy to skeletons. It's an attack vs an object (and an indirect attack vs the skeletons, see (3)), so his invisibility doesn't end. His second attack may or may not end the spell, but that's a different story. Declaring a full attack does not end the spell.

A helpless creature who is capable of being CdG'd is not an object. The fact that you are attacking breaks the spell, whether you use the 'standard action to start a full round action' or out right state 'full attack action' and later change your mind after the first attack (and so it reverts to a standard action) is again meaningless to the point at hand. The attack occurred during an action, that action is what causes the invisibility to drop. Your example while interesting still doesn't change the fact that attacks occur during an specified type of action RAW. Attacks during a full attack action aren't specific distinct actions mechanically. An action is the only reference point we have with the game mechanics to say 'this is when an action occurs' RAW. Touch spells are about the only place I can find that have a distinct attack spelled out RAW. You cast the spell and as the touch attack is a 'free action' there is some wiggle room for it. All other attacks seem to be rolled up into a specified action with no distinction made they 'just happen' in that action.

I do however want to say thank you for bringing up a situation where this doesn't make sense (I don't actually like the idea of it working the way I'm saying). Because the majority of other situations the way I've been explaining still 'fits' mechanically. I still think that the spell should have it's break point cleared up a little better.
Quote:
ncorrect. For example, an invisible cleric casting a Cure Light Wounds spell... is that a harmful spell/action? No, of course not, ... or is it? Ask a ghoul, he might disagree. Let's say the cleric casts the spell and holds the charge until next round, when he'll decide whether to heal his ally or hurt a ghoul depending on the situation. So when does he turn visible? The moment he begins casting the spell or the moment he actually touches someone who's harmed by positive energy? (The latter is true - that's when it actually becomes an harmful action/attack.)

See above, touch attacks are the only spells that give a 'free action' to make the attack and so wouldn't break invisibility as the attack is defined as another action type and isn't part of the casting of the spell. All other spells involve targeting as part of the casting of the spell.

Quote:
Please quote the relevant parts of rules text when making RAW arguments. Otherwise it'll just look like you're offering your interpretations of the rules. Interpretations =/= RAW.

The game is broken up into actions, actions are when attacks occur. Attacks aren't a distinct action unto themselves (unless otherwise described). As the game gives no other way to break up an action it is what we have to refer to on when an attack 'occurs.' The spell breaks on an attack, not a successful attack, not even an attack roll. Given that an action is a 'summary' of what happens during a specified action, where thematically multiple 'attacks' could occur (parry, ripostes, etc.) for just one attack roll to be made inconsistencies in what we envision happen, it may not align with what the mechanics say. When the game refers to an attack action, the typical reference is the 'standard' action used to attack. But the plain truth is, an attack isn't defined in the game mechanics, it IS defined as either an action, or part of an action. All of this could be thrown out the window, if the spell broke on a more explicit criteria. The packaging of 'attacks' into the actions, which we have to abide by mechanically is where this is being muddied. I've already said I don't like what I've seen and you've given an example where it doesn't work, but for the majority of the rest of the time it does, just like any other RAW item. I say hit the FAQ and hope for an actual Paizo response in regards to the matter.

Sczarni

Quote:
You may choose the target of the spell at the tail end of casting it, but that whole action is still a harmful action as far as invisibility and game mechanics are written up.

In the first book of Carrion Crown there is a cursed spell book in the game which causes it's bearer to perform a DC 14 Will save every time they attempt to cast a spell. If they fail their save they abort their casting at the last second in the interest of hoarding their spells.

Should the caster be invisible, begin to cast, fail their save, and abort their casting they would still be invisible because no spell was cast and therefor no action was taken, but the time required for the casting, the standard action, is still expended.

The spell drops at the conclusion of the hostile action, not before. It's a cause and effect. The cause is the attack, the effect is the spell ending. The effect cannot happen before the cause.

If an invisible Ranger is standing next to an enemy Barbarian and takes a shot with his bow, he does not provoke an attack because he is invisible. He gets one shot, he becomes visible, and if he takes another shot he will provoke.

Silver Crusade

It's been suggested that the 'action' (in terms of standard, full-round, etc) is the only game mechanic that allows us to adjudicate when the attack takes place and therefore when the invisibility is lost.

Let's see... we have the game mechanic of standard/move/full-round/etc. We also have the game mechanic of 'actions in combat', which are the things you do during those standard/move/full-round actions, and it's the 'attack' that causes the invisibility to go, not the standard/full-round/free/etc action type in which the actual attack takes place.


Quote:
There is no distinction for when an attack occurs in a specified action mechanically in the game.

False.

Quote:

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

If you make an attack roll, you are making an attack. If you are invisible when you make the attack, you add a +2 bonus. If you are not invisible, you don't add a +2 bonus. If you are never invisible when you make the attack roll, then you never apply the +2 bonus.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Skylancer4 wrote:
Intent isn't EVER mentioned in RAW. Attacking a creature breaks the spell, RAW, you marked it in your own post. An attack is an action, actions are categorized into free, immediate, swift, move, standard or full round. These are the ONLY...

So, to summarize, we both agree on that "harmful intent breaks the spell" isn't a RAW argument because the intent of the attacker is not mentioned in RAW, and the only thing that matters is whether you actually attack a creature or target a foe with a harmful spell (or include one in a spell's area). I guess the only thing of any relevance that we're still in disagreement about is whether actions (full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate) are inseparable from the attack(s) they enable a character to make.

It's been established that touch spells and the attacks they allow you to make can be separated as far as actions are concerned. It's possible to cast a spell on one round (usually a standard action), hold the charge, and attack with the spell on another round (a separate standard action). So merely casting the spell cannot break invisibility because the caster has the option to decide whether he's going to use it in a harmful way or a benevolent way on a later round.

But they are not the only spells that allow you to use the spell on a different round that you began casting it. Actually, all spells with a casting time of 1 round work this way: you use a full-round action on your round, and at the beginning of your next round, the spell comes to effect. If you are, for example, casting reduce person , you have the option of using it to make yourself smaller to get better AC (good for e.g. wizards), or to try to make a strong foe weaker by making them smaller. Here too it's something you cannot decide while you're using your full-round action because the target you initially planned to choose may not be available anymore.

But this is not something peculiar to touch spells and 1-round spells. All spells allow you to choose the target once you've completed casting the spell as was already discussed above. Do you or do you not agree that selecting the target (or area) is what ultimately decides whether the spell is harmful to a foe? I think we already agreed that "harmful intent" is moot as a RAW argument, so it must be target selection that makes the spell harmful or not harmful.

If characters have the option of selecting the target (and consequently, whether it's harmful to a foe) when they have already finished casting the spell, then it would really not make sense for an invisible character to select a target earlier than is necessary and in doing so "pop" his invisibility prematurely and risk AoOs, would it?

Which in turn means that a spellcaster can always use the option of selecting targets at "the tail end" and thus avoid any AoOs. (All this assuming that initiating a potentially harmful action breaks the invisibility spell as you claim. I say "potentially" because - as the previous examples prove - it is possible to make that decision after finishing the action that provokes AoOs.)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

It's been suggested that the 'action' (in terms of standard, full-round, etc) is the only game mechanic that allows us to adjudicate when the attack takes place and therefore when the invisibility is lost.

Let's see... we have the game mechanic of standard/move/full-round/etc. We also have the game mechanic of 'actions in combat', which are the things you do during those standard/move/full-round actions, and it's the 'attack' that causes the invisibility to go, not the standard/full-round/free/etc action type in which the actual attack takes place.

Exactly, well put! (And now I feel stupid for making (methinks) valid but awfully long-winded arguments when I could have just said what you did. :D )

Silver Crusade

Serpent wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

It's been suggested that the 'action' (in terms of standard, full-round, etc) is the only game mechanic that allows us to adjudicate when the attack takes place and therefore when the invisibility is lost.

Let's see... we have the game mechanic of standard/move/full-round/etc. We also have the game mechanic of 'actions in combat', which are the things you do during those standard/move/full-round actions, and it's the 'attack' that causes the invisibility to go, not the standard/full-round/free/etc action type in which the actual attack takes place.

Exactly, well put! (And now I feel stupid for making (methinks) valid but awfully long-winded arguments when I could have just said what you did. :D )

Hey, I've been at your end of this situation often enough! : )


Serpent wrote:
if you target a "foe" with a spell, your invisibility ends. But if your fireball only affects your allies, or it only affects unattended objects, you're still invisible.

That's not true.

Serpent wrote:
Quoth the SRD: "(1) 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.

That clarifies what an attack is, not a creature. Attacking your allies is still an attack.

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / At what point does a Coup de Grace break Invisibility? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.