So playing a game and my character was invisible and flying. I threw a barrel of gunpowder at the feet of my enemies, and our sorceres wall of fire did damage to the barrel and blew it up. Would this break MY invisibility. I did not directly target the enemies. I targeted the ground, an ongoing spell effect caused the explosion. Invisibility calls out spells, but this is not a spell. This is indirect damaged from me throwing the keg of gunpowder at the ground. Am i right?
|
I'm not entirely clear on the timing of the wall of fire.
- If the wall of fire was already in place and you threw a barrel of gunpowder into it, you directly used an area-of-effect attack, taking advantage of a freestanding fire source to light it (just as if you lit the barrel from a torch on the wall) and your foes were in the area of effect. Invisibility breaks. Whether you claimed to be "aiming at the ground" is immaterial.
- If you threw a barrel of gunpowder to the ground, then the sorcerer cast wall of fire and lit it off, you haven't directly attacked a foe (and neither has the sorcerer, if he happened to be invisible as well - damaging unattended objects doesn't break invisibility).
Thats helpful, thank you. We were not sure on how destroying exploding objects effected the spell. Even other rulings ive seen on forums were even on whether it did or didnt. One person said it doesnt need an attack roll to hit the enemies, so it wasnt a direct attack. I csn see where you are coming from and will begrudgingly notify my GM that my plan wont work anymore.
I would rule that your invisibility is maintained. Per the spell's description:
"Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. 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 the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear."
I would place this in the same category as remotely triggering traps or cutting a rope bridge.
This is a very fine line and I would not argue against a DM who saw it as an area of effect attack. As much as I hate to say it, this one depends on the DM.
I would rule that your invisibility is maintained. Per the spell's description:
"Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. 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 the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear."I would place this in the same category as remotely triggering traps or cutting a rope bridge.
This is a very fine line and I would not argue against a DM who saw it as an area of effect attack. As much as I hate to say it, this one depends on the DM.
We were on the fence about whether or not applied. I more agree with your interpretation. This counts as indirect damage as a result of an action, rather than a direct attack.