|
I have always assumed that any spell that affects an opponent would be considered an 'offensive' spell that would break Invisibility on the caster. During a game a Player cast Grease under an opponent. To me this would be an offensive move as it affected an opponent, restricting movement in this case. He argued that the spell was cast at the floor and not at the opponent and therefore did not break the Invisibility spell. Is there a steadfast rule as to what is defined as a spell that would break Invisibility? The same question would go to Charm spells, bouncing Lightning Bolts, as well a Healing, per se. They all affect an opponent, do they break Invisibility? Thank You.
Invisibility, page 302 Core Rulebook...
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
I think the "or whose area or effect includes a foe" is pertinent to this. In short, your player is out of luck, unless they are playing a prank on a friend :) Imho anyway. Note btw, that it says "area OR effect". If your players do the rules lawyer bit that may come up...
... 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...
The type of action that breaks invisibility is "attack", not "offensive". So things like grease, glitterdust, create pit, and other examples listed within the spell itself don't break invisibility. Charm is not an attack, and would not break invisibility.
Spells that directly cause damage, even in an AoE (such as fireball, or cone of colt), are attacks. "Healing" spells, if you mean Cure, don't break invisibility if used to heal. If you use it to hurt undead, it is considered an attack and thus would break invisibility.
What he said :) And if it requires a saving throw either by targeting a creature or having an area of effect it's an attack. Although I'm sure this could be argued about for days. Has it been FAQ'd?
The indirect damage, does it break invisibility came up in my game last week. Does a Ninja under the effect of a Vanish spell lose their invisibility for lighting a pellet grenade and rolling it into a room?
Now if you can summon monsters and order them to attack, remotely set off traps and cut the ropes holding a bridge up and stay invisible then???
Our GM judged the Ninja would stay invisible until the grenade went off. I was happy with that.
But the above example is easy, if the spell's area includes a foe then invisibility is over. And anyone who says Grease or Glitterdust aren't offensive spells has never had one of their PCs hit with one!
I have always assumed that any spell that affects an opponent would be considered an 'offensive' spell that would break Invisibility on the caster. During a game a Player cast Grease under an opponent. To me this would be an offensive move as it affected an opponent, restricting movement in this case. He argued that the spell was cast at the floor and not at the opponent and therefore did not break the Invisibility spell. Is there a steadfast rule as to what is defined as a spell that would break Invisibility? The same question would go to Charm spells, bouncing Lightning Bolts, as well a Healing, per se. They all affect an opponent, do they break Invisibility? Thank You.
If the grease spell ws cast on an area occupied by an enemy it breaks invisibility. Basically if the spell targets someone with a negative effect or it is an area affect that includes an enemy invisibility is broken. Grease making you fall on gour arse or making you drop a weapon is definitely a negative effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Invisibility rules as-is always broke versimilitude for me. Better to just do something simple like saying 'while Invisible, you are considered Staggered, if you choose to end that condition, the spell will be broken'. Trying to decipher what technically constitutes an attack and what doesn't becomes too much of a meta-gaming issue in my opinion.
That's actually kind of how we play it, except the additional action dirupts the spell but doesn't end it.
Think of it like this: a veil of invisibility cloaks you, but if you move to fast, cover too much ground or engage in too elaborate an action, the veil is disrupted. For the duration of the spell you are Staggered by choice to keep the veil in tact. If you choose to act normally (double move, full attack action, etc.), the veil is disrupted until the beginning of your next turn at which point you become Invisible again - unless you again act too quickly or elaborately. Obviously the duration of the spell ending cancels the effect as well.
Its worked out very well and feels much more natural than the games we were playing with the rules before.
Would Beguiling Gift (spell) of a Poison Vial break Invisibility?
Think of it like this: a veil of invisibility cloaks you, but if you move to fast, cover too much ground or engage in too elaborate an action, the veil is disrupted. For the duration of the spell you are Staggered by choice to keep the veil in tact. If you choose to act normally (double move, full attack action, etc.), the veil is disrupted until the beginning of your next turn at which point you become Invisible again - unless you again act too quickly or elaborately. Obviously the duration of the spell ending cancels the effect as well.
Its worked out very well and feels much more natural than the games we were playing with the rules before.
If I were a wizard or other primary spellcasting class, I'd buy into this interpretation/house rule of invisibility all day!
Wizard: What? You mean I can go invisible, stand over here in the corner, and spam every spell I've got as a standard action and never become visible? Um, WIN! Yeah, sign me up!
I'd then make sure that all my primary spells had no point of origin, so no enemy would be able to pinpoint me and stop worrying about a thing! Or, do you make sure that every NPC one comes across has see invisibility to counter this?
You just need to play an invisible character who considers everyone to be their friend (even those they attack).
Friendship (allies/enemies) is a two way street. Even if you consider them a friend, but they don't consider you a friend, you are out of luck.
You just need to play an invisible character who considers everyone to be their friend (even those they attack).
Trying to play those kinds of mental gymnastics will quickly result in a dead character.
This topic again...
Offensive Spells can be misleading in their definition, since a spell that target a random area (such as a Wall of Ice impeding an enemy's escape) can't be construed as an Offensive Casting of a spell, since the creature is not in the area or effect of the Wall of Ice spell being cast. )If anything, it's fitting on some spells to be considered Offensive, since some spells only affect humanoids [Charm Person], whereas others affect everything [Dominate Monster].)
Hostile Spells is a better title since it is a spell cast with a harmful intent, not an offensive intent (which could perhaps be nigh harmless). This is exactly what the Invisibility Spell breaks on; spells used in a hostile, harmful manner directly against a creature.
It's important to cite that it must directly involve the creature, otherwise casting a Wall of Ice to imprison an enemy would be considered a hostile spell even though it isn't a spell that has a foe in its area or effect (i.e. trapping said foe inside the Wall of Ice), ergo it wouldn't break invisibility.
Would Beguiling Gift (spell) of a Poison Vial break Invisibility?
Yes. Beguiling gift is an attack on someone, despite doing no damage or harm on its own. Might be awkward to hand someone something and stay invisible.
The indirect damage, does it break invisibility came up in my game last week. Does a Ninja under the effect of a Vanish spell lose their invisibility for lighting a pellet grenade and rolling it into a room?
Now if you can summon monsters and order them to attack, remotely set off traps and cut the ropes holding a bridge up and stay invisible then???
Our GM judged the Ninja would stay invisible until the grenade went off. I was happy with that.
But the above example is easy, if the spell's area includes a foe then invisibility is over. And anyone who says Grease or Glitterdust aren't offensive spells has never had one of their PCs hit with one!
If the grenade would not explode with anyone in the AoE, at the time of tossing, then it would be the same as a smoke bomb. It creates a hazard, but is not an attack. Like a trap, a delayed explosion is a trap. Enemies choosing to get in range of the explosion are not you attacking them, so it does not break invisibility. Getting them to walk into the hazard is another matter, and does require a delayed effect on a presently clear area.
/cevah
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The grenade isn't a spell, so the line about spell areas or effects wouldn't strictly apply. It is a splash weapon, so if the ninja targeted a square, rather than an enemy, it wouldn't technically break invis.
Almost all of the "non-offensive" spells that folks have brought up upthread do break invis. Cure spells on allies don't, but they do if used, for instance, to harm undead. Stinking cloud, glitterdust, sleet storm, grease, etc. all break invis if they are cast such that an opponent is within their area of effect. It's ambiguous whether or not an opponent becoming affected by a spell after it is cast, such as by walking into an existing stinking cloud, will break the caster's invis--but I suspect that RAI, and probably the way most GMs play it, is that it does not.
The rules for invisibility don't care whether a spell is offensive or not. If it targets a foe or includes a foe in its area or effect, it breaks invisibility, whether it's guidance or finger of death.