Hey, the other side is who set the scenario.
"Badass waltzes into the local Wizard's college and begins chopping heads" kinda lends itself to someone going "Hey, what's all that screaming on the lower floors?" and buffs being cast and stuff.
So basically, you don't want to see how easily an antimagic field strategy will get a level 20 Fighter killed by a Wizard 5 levels lower. Fair enough. I can respect people who know when to bow out of a discussion.Why is it that all "WIZURDZ IZ SUPERIOR!!!!" discussions seem to begin with the wizard just happening to have ALREADY cast JUST the right spells, have EXACTLY the right equipment, the encounter takes place in an environment that's EXACTLY suited to favor the wizard, etc?
Yeah, I have only heard that one over and over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, the other side is who set the scenario.
"Badass waltzes into the local Wizard's college and begins chopping heads" kinda lends itself to someone going "Hey, what's all that screaming on the lower floors?" and buffs being cast and stuff.
Indeed. I'd have to say that "Combat starts with the Fighter in an anti-magic field and adjacent to the caster" is just arbitrary and forced of a setup as the wizard having all of the right buffs cast and spells available.
True, but if a wizard was standing next to the door, and it opens and the wielder walks in, they are already unfortunately in the danger zone.
Some pc games can cover this quite well and allow appreciating it from a first or third person sense. Where you don't want a long line of sight between you and a caster, but winding tunnels, small rooms, lots of doors, they are wonderful for ganking spellcasters.
They can also be easily sealed off by earth/stone spells, aiding the defensive side. So anti-magic can't trump some obstacles set in stone as it were.
So basically, you don't want to see how easily an antimagic field strategy will get a level 20 Fighter killed by a Wizard 5 levels lower. Fair enough. I can respect people who know when to bow out of a discussion.Why is it that all "WIZURDZ IZ SUPERIOR!!!!" discussions seem to begin with the wizard just happening to have ALREADY cast JUST the right spells, have EXACTLY the right equipment, the encounter takes place in an environment that's EXACTLY suited to favor the wizard, etc?
He has Divinations and the Knowledge chops to know which spells to prepare, and what to do in general.
Is it not also the case that "the right spells" happen to be more or less the same spells every time?
If the Wizard is caught at a real disadvantage, he has multiple escape spells too.
The position of the people who say "Wizards are superior" is not that they have higher DPR, or even that they would win one-on-one. It's that the Wizard can do literally dozens of powerful things that the mundanes cannot, because the mundanes are mundane.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People on this forum think that Lava is Boiling Kool-Aid.
I don't know why the hell a bathtub worth of lava is so special either.
It can set probably one building on fire.
Yaaaay.
Medieval cities burned down a few times a millennium due to bad fires because firefighting was primitive. In the meantime 99.9% of all other fires were quashed without leading to local apocalypse, using completely nonmagical firefighting techniques.
(unless anyone is suggesting that most random house fires resulted in the complete destruction of the city in question? Anyone? Anyone?)
Crassus became the Republic's richest man by playing chicken with fires innumerable times, and not once having it backfire and burn down his city.
This lava stuff is one specific example of a general case of magic's pure destructive firepower on a macro scale being consistently overestimated.
It doesn't really matter, because the idea that every town is sheathed in antimagic is out there to begin with, but still.
Even the vaunted Locate City Nuke didn't cause significant property damage, it just killed everyone who failed their saves and didn't happen to be in a small enough room.
The constant antimagic field shoudl be on a sword that is sheathed. So whatever martial that use it benefits from his magical gear until he can be side by side with the spellcaster.
The constant antimagic field shoudl be on a sword that is sheathed. So whatever martial that use it benefits from his magical gear until he can be side by side with the spellcaster.
If at any point he sheathes it a 15th Level Wizard will automatically win the win the fight with absolutely no rolling required. (And I had planned on doing this very thing.)
|
Anzyr, I get what you're saying, except for the part where you keep on ignoring the word "indirectly." It's in there, it has a definition. Directly activating a trap and indirectly activating it are two different things. Why do you think the word "remotely" is in there, if it doesn't, apparently from your position, have any meaning?
I do agree that opening a box, by itself, isn't going to trigger invisibility to break, even if said box contains lava. The same logic here applies as cutting the ropes on the bridge. Gravity causes the harm. That said, if you're trying to hit an attended structure/object, then invisibility will break. Attacking structures/objects is only permitted if said things are unattended.
Indirectly does have a definition. Here lets look at it:
1. not in a direct course or path; deviating from a straight line; roundabout: an indirect course in sailing.
2. coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects or consequences: an indirect advantage.
3. not direct in action or procedure: His methods are indirect but not dishonest.
4. not straightforward; devious; deceitful: He is known as a shady, indirect fellow.
5. not direct in bearing, application, force, etc.: indirect
evidence.So.. triggering the trap and having the trap deliver the harm qualifies... for literally of those. Its a roundabout, indirect, is not a direct or immediate attack, is not direct in action or procedure (activate trap to attack instead of just attack), its definetly not straightforward, and the bearing, application, and force are not directly from the caster, but from the trap. The same is true of opening a box that contains lava, even if you point it in the right direction.
That's just good clean English.
As to houses counting as attended objects I will gladly concede this point if you can show me some rule that says so, similar to a captain attending a ship, which...
So in your good clean English, you again managed to miss my point. I'm not saying that causing a trap to cause damage isn't indirectly causing damage. I agree. But that's not where indirectly is placed in the phrase. Indirectly triggering a trap is not the same as directly triggering a trap. One is permitted by the spell, the other is not. Using your own 3 definition: Not Direct in Action or Procedure.
Invisibility says that it doesn't break if you INDIRECTLY trigger the trap. Indirectly means, in essence, not directly. Applying direct force to trigger a trap is not indirectly triggering it by definition.
An example: Directly triggering a trap would be pulling a tripwire to get the trap to shoot arrows. Indirectly would be rolling a ball down a hallway to hit the tripwire. See the difference?
You also ignored the definition that I had already given, thank you. I'll repeat it for your consideration:
Indirectly
1) not directly caused by or resulting from something; not done directly; conducted through intermediaries
2) (of a route) not straight; not following the shortest way
3) avoiding direct mention or exposition of a subject
Regarding unattended, here's one possible definition from the Teleport spell: Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance.
A structure is in use if people are inside it, the same as a ship is in use if crew are aboard it.
People on this forum think that Lava is Boiling Kool-Aid.I don't know why the hell a bathtub worth of lava is so special either.
It can set probably one building on fire.
It's a bathtub of shrunken lava. When it enters the AMF it expands to 4000x its shrunken volume and mass.
|
|
He has Divinations and the Knowledge chops to know which spells to prepare, and what to do in general.
Which divinations spells is the wizard using to let him know about threats he doesn't already know about. Sure, he he knows that he has powerful enemy X, then he can scry X, figure out X's plans, etc.
But if he doesn't know about Y, that's not doing him a g++%!%n bit of good when Y shows up to stick two of his little wands through his eyeballs and stir his brains into pudding.
The "Wizurdz iz all-powerful" stuff is built on circular logic:
The wizard is all-powerful because he can prepare himself for whatever. He knows about whatever because...he's all powerful?
Wizard is powerfull because he has acess to powerfull. Spell like wall of force works in any cenario
He has Divinations and the Knowledge chops to know which spells to prepare, and what to do in general.Which divinations spells is the wizard using to let him know about threats he doesn't already know about. Sure, he he knows that he has powerful enemy X, then he can scry X, figure out X's plans, etc.
But if he doesn't know about Y, that's not doing him a g~+~*~n bit of good when Y shows up to stick two of his little wands through his eyeballs and stir his brains into pudding.
The "Wizurdz iz all-powerful" stuff is built on circular logic:
The wizard is all-powerful because he can prepare himself for whatever. He knows about whatever because...he's all powerful?
I swear that there is a spell for exactly that but I forget what it is called and it's pretty high level, too. Though to be fair, most wizard spells are effective in any scenario. It's not as if a wizard has to prepare he Anti-Giant Ant spell, the Anti Babau Demon spell, and the Anti-elf spell to defeat those enemies or simply be a significant contributor to the situation.
As for utility situations, most can wait the 15 minutes he wizard needs to fill the empty (but not used) spell slot with the proper spell.
So, could a WISH spell remove the AMF on the sword?
or could the caster just use the wish to entrap the AMF equipped fighter in a Sphere of force (unaffected by AMF)?
He has Divinations and the Knowledge chops to know which spells to prepare, and what to do in general.Which divinations spells is the wizard using to let him know about threats he doesn't already know about. Sure, he he knows that he has powerful enemy X, then he can scry X, figure out X's plans, etc.
But if he doesn't know about Y, that's not doing him a g*~%+%n bit of good when Y shows up to stick two of his little wands through his eyeballs and stir his brains into pudding.
The "Wizurdz iz all-powerful" stuff is built on circular logic:
The wizard is all-powerful because he can prepare himself for whatever. He knows about whatever because...he's all powerful?
Someone's salty. Show me on the doll where the bad Wizard touched you.
Also for the situations the Wizard didn't see coming, there's always Contingency.
It's a bathtub of shrunken lava.Why is lava even a valid target for shrink item?
Because the spell is b@!+@*+%.
So, could a WISH spell remove the AMF on the sword?
or could the caster just use the wish to entrap the AMF equipped fighter in a Sphere of force (unaffected by AMF)?
That brings up another thought I brought up in this thread, why any magic-user over 19th level doesn't have a few wish items on them. I know I would if I were that level.
But I'd imagine you could just wish the spell effect away, if only for just that battle, if you wanted.
Then again, wish is like the...I win spell...in regards to what it does and how it operates.
It's a bathtub of shrunken lava. When it enters the AMF it expands to 4000x its shrunken volume and mass.People on this forum think that Lava is Boiling Kool-Aid.I don't know why the hell a bathtub worth of lava is so special either.
It can set probably one building on fire.
I think this thread is encountering some difficulty in visualizing scale.
Two things.
First. The bathtub size of lava is what you would get when you unshrink the lava (assuming you are able to shrink bits of lava to begin with). So, no, to begin with.
Second, 4000x the volume of a typical bathtub would still not be much lava on a town scale anyway. It's half an Olympic swimming pool. A largish swimming pool of water is not enough to flood a town in water; a largish swimming pool of lava is not enough to flood a town in lava.
Pyroclastic flows from Vesuvius destroyed Herculaneum... by dumping around 1-2 hundred million cubic feet in town limits.
Shrink Item's 2 cubic feet per caster level? Not quite as impressive. You've gone to quite a bit trouble to create something sharing the same order of magnitude as a single infantryman's incendiary hand grenade, not a city killing weapon.
...Anzyr, I get what you're saying, except for the part where you keep on ignoring the word "indirectly." It's in there, it has a definition. Directly activating a trap and indirectly activating it are two different things. Why do you think the word "remotely" is in there, if it doesn't, apparently from your position, have any meaning?
I do agree that opening a box, by itself, isn't going to trigger invisibility to break, even if said box contains lava. The same logic here applies as cutting the ropes on the bridge. Gravity causes the harm. That said, if you're trying to hit an attended structure/object, then invisibility will break. Attacking structures/objects is only permitted if said things are unattended.
Indirectly does have a definition. Here lets look at it:
1. not in a direct course or path; deviating from a straight line; roundabout: an indirect course in sailing.
2. coming or resulting otherwise than directly or immediately, as effects or consequences: an indirect advantage.
3. not direct in action or procedure: His methods are indirect but not dishonest.
4. not straightforward; devious; deceitful: He is known as a shady, indirect fellow.
5. not direct in bearing, application, force, etc.: indirect
evidence.So.. triggering the trap and having the trap deliver the harm qualifies... for literally of those. Its a roundabout, indirect, is not a direct or immediate attack, is not direct in action or procedure (activate trap to attack instead of just attack), its definetly not straightforward, and the bearing, application, and force are not directly from the caster, but from the trap. The same is true of opening a box that contains lava, even if you point it in the right direction.
That's just good clean English.
As to houses counting as attended objects I will gladly concede this point if you can show me some rule that says so, similar to a captain
Whether you activate the trap directly or indirectly. Regardless, the attack that the trap makes against the target is an indirect action and thus will not break invisibility. Only your direct actions break invisibility.
To counter your attempt to paint all objects as attended if they are "in use". The examples provided clearly allow you to target a bridge that is in use without breaking invisibility. Lighting said bridge on fire would be likewise indirect. The action is not directed at the individuals you hope to harm, even if harm to those individuals is the likely outcome.
Seriously, this isn't rocket surgery.
@ TOZ - Lava is a valid target for the same reason "fire" and "water" are. It converts them into a cloth.
@ Kthulhu - Contact other Plane - Will I encounter an anti-magic field today? After asking that, ask if the answer to the last question is correct. You have a very low chance of getting it wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to shoot an arrow into the air. the fact it may come down in the middle of the army over there is irrelevant, I'll still stay invisible.
I think not.
Contingency doesn't work in an AMF, either. And the wording on Contingency in these examples is always miraculously exactly what is needed to avoid a threat instead of something realistic.
I find it highly amusing that an entire city covered in an AMF has a way to deal with airborne creatures dropping things on it, but a 5th level wizard can trump them all. Amazing how low level wizards rule the world.
And no, all wizards don't prepare conjuration direct damage spells. In fact, very few of them do, because direct damage is by and large less then useful, and especially at 5th level you don't cast it strongly enough to actually kill anything of equal CR. Tat warsteed hippogriff has 40 or so hit points, for example, and the rider is likely also 5th level. In the middle of trying to stay invisible, bombard a town with burning goo, you're going to take the time to shoot a direct damage spell at something it won't even slow down, and then you'll die.
Amazging.
And Schroedinger's wizard perfectly positioned to take care of an AMF also tends to be hilariously vulnerable when attacked by someone without it. "What do you mean, he still has buffs? You said-!" "Oh, I'll activate it in a minute. In the meantime..."
It's also widely ignored that a wizard has to pay a Called creature for its time and effort, but it's a no-no that a fighter can hire someone with class levels and the appropriate skills for a period of time and the same amount of money. No, no, can't use common sense and bring help along I paid the exact same amount of money that the mage did!
==Aelryinth
|
|
Whether you activate the trap directly or indirectly. Regardless, the attack that the trap makes against the target is an indirect action and thus will not break invisibility. Only your direct actions break invisibility.
According to the spell, the bolded statement is actually wrong. One is not the other. Care to try again?
Re: in-use = attended: I did say it was only one definition. Not even one I like or am particularly attached to.
Just because remotely triggering traps will *also* not break invisibility, does not make your statement any more valid. Please do go on though.
@ Aelryinth - One... its your city that is that is Schrodinger's here. The initial city was merely in an AMF, please stop attempting to change the scenario and then pretending that your altered scenario was the original one.
Next, someone with an antimagic is again going to have a hard time locating a wizard. Please describe how they are able to do this from within an antimagic field. Also, as I stated, the 5th level wizard was merely an example of how badly a city in an AMF is defended against casters. Ya when you change the scenario and add in Schroedinger's Hippogriff riders, it does look silly. Maybe you should stick to the actual argument I put forth rather than attacking a strawman. Pretty please?
And really... I'm curious how these Fighters magically get on top of the Wizard they can't locate. Or close the distance when they can't move as fast (thanks to their AMF). Or will fail any reflex or will saves they have to make (which believe me is going to come up). How's that base Save of +6 with only your feat bonus (if you took them) to help you? My guess is you are going to really really wish you had +stat items and Cloak of Resistance.
Finally, no you don't have to pay a called creature. Please read the spell. I'd quote it but I'm already doing all the rules quoting in this thread and seems fair to put the burden of this on you.
|
|
Just because remotely triggering traps will *also* not break invisibility, does not make your statement any more valid. Please do go on though.
If you believe that the idea of remotely triggering a trap is in addition to directly triggering a trap, then why doesn't it just say "triggering a trap?" It says, "Thus, an invisible being can ... remotely trigger traps, ..." I'm not seeing any indication that directly triggering a trap is permitted as a non-break condition.
Please, show me where you're seeing otherwise. If you can find it, I'll concede. If you can't, then perhaps you should reconsider your views.
What, in this case, makes a crossbow trap different from a crossbow? If you pull the trigger on one, it shoots. If you pull the trigger on the other, it shoots. Functionally, no difference, n'est-ce pas?
But, is there a difference between pulling the trigger and sending some intermediary item to pull the trigger for you?
If you pull a string, you're still pulling the trigger. If you step on a pressure plate, you're still pulling the trigger. But if you throw a rock at the pressure plate, that's different. If you drop the crossbow and it triggers by hitting the ground, you didn't fire it. You just dropped it.
Show me how pulling a trigger is "remotely triggering," or where Invisibility says that the two are functionally the same, and I'll believe you. Quote me a rule, because the burden of proof is on you, this time. Emphasis mine, I've shown you this card:
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 don't understand why the invisibility trap point of contention is really an issue. Surely the Wizard could just do this at night while no-one can see him?
Sable Company Marines (Ranger Archetype) get a Hippogriff rider as their AC, or you could be an Aasimar or a Strix if you wanted natural flight yourself.
I don't understand why the invisibility trap point of contention is really an issue. Surely the Wizard could just do this at night while no-one can see him?
Well, come to think of it, I don't understand why lava bombing is an issue invisible or not.
If a mage wants to kill someone in Antimagic Towne, what happened to good old Planar Binding an Invisible Stalker or whatever and then relaxing in your sanctum a hundred miles away? That's good clean fun, it's classic, and it's basically effective enough for most purposes.
All this business of custom shrunken-lava-dispensing man-portable pseudoremotely triggered airborne traps seems like unnecessary complexity. Spellcasters don't need to abandon KISS to punch with gloves off.
This is real simple jlighter. You show me where activating a trap is an attack action and I will concede. Otherwise,
"Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack."
"If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear."
Are fatal to your argument.
Again Coriat, if you read my posts I suggest those as well. The point of the shrunken lava dropping, invisible, flying Wizard is that this is something that can be done at level 5.
|
|
Activating a trap directly to cause harm is not, as you put it, indirectly causing harm. You pull (or otherwise activate) the trigger. The trap fires. By activating the trigger, you directly fired (attacked with) the trap (a weapon). The same way using a torch to fire a cannon is still firing a weapon (attacking). The same way pulling the trigger on a crossbow is firing a weapon (attacking). If you're directly using a trap as a weapon, it's a weapon, and you're making an attack.
If triggering a trap falls under "actions directed at unattended objects," why is "remotely trigger a trap" specifically called out as opposed to "trigger a trap?
If the word remotely has meaning, what does it mean in relation to triggering a trap?
How does "remotely" triggering a trap differ from "directly" triggering a trap?
Where is it stated that an "attack action" is necessary to break Invisibility?
Prove your own point and answer points made in opposition. You still have not addressed any iteration of the word "remotely" being used with a logical argument.
TL;DR: Directly activating a trap doesn't have to be an attack action. It's directly causing harm, not indirectly.
Again Coriat, if you read my posts I suggest those as well.
I know you did. So why aren't we talking about that? The ability to flip the bird to Antimagic Towne using the rules in a straightforward, simple, as-intended manner, and with no particularly great system mastery required, is much more significant than the ability to maybe or maybe not succeed in flipping very small yet sufficiently flammable portions of it the bird a couple of levels earlier using obscure rules combinations.
It doesn't really matter to game balance what you can or cannot do to someone's living room with shrink item, custom shrunken-lava-dispensing man-portable pseudoremotely triggered airborne traps, Invisibility, fly, lava, and an antimagic field.
I mean, I enjoy talking about the fire brigades of classical antiquity as much as the next guy*, but this lava discussion is not really saying much practical about antimagic and balance that couldn't be said ten times better with more straightforward examples of a bit higher level than 5th.
Activating a trap directly to cause harm is not, as you put it, indirectly causing harm. You pull (or otherwise activate) the trigger. The trap fires. By activating the trigger, you directly fired (attacked with) the trap (a weapon). The same way using a torch to fire a cannon is still firing a weapon (attacking). The same way pulling the trigger on a crossbow is firing a weapon (attacking). If you're directly using a trap as a weapon, it's a weapon, and you're making an attack.
If triggering a trap falls under "actions directed at unattended objects," why is "remotely trigger a trap" specifically called out as opposed to "trigger a trap?
If the word remotely has meaning, what does it mean in relation to triggering a trap?
How does "remotely" triggering a trap differ from "directly" triggering a trap?
Prove your own point and answer points made in opposition. You still have not addressed any iteration of the word "remotely" being used with a logical argument.
TL;DR: Directly activating a trap doesn't have to be an attack action. It's directly causing harm, not indirectly.
The trap is directly causing harm. You are not. You do not make any attack roll and cause no harm directly. You only cause harm through the activation of the trap which is not a direct action. Again, unless you can show where that is an attack action, your argument is effectively dead.
My own argument is simple. The trap is causing the harm not you. It is not an attack action on your part. Therefore, based on the sentences quoted above, invisibility is not lost.
@ Coriat: Agreed, at higher levels, the town is going to have to deal with animated/called/created creatures. A few good calling choices can force the guards to engage a monster with superior statistics, while they are at their weakest from lack of magic gear.
|
|
The trap is directly causing harm. You are not. You do not make any attack roll and cause no harm directly. You only cause harm through the activation of the trap which is not a direct action. Again, unless you can show where that is an attack action, your argument is effectively dead.
The trap is directly causing harm the way the crossbow is directly causing harm. "I didn't shoot him, the crossbow did. I only let it do so." Doesn't work that way.
At no point in the spell Invisibility is it stated that an attack action is required to break the spell, or that the invisible creature must make an attack roll. Any action that can be considered an offensive or hostile action is an attack for purposes of Invisibility. Relevant text:
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.
No action-type is ever described. Thus, any action that attacks a creature breaks the spell. If you're holding a trap in your hand and you attack with it, it doesn't matter if you roll the attack roll or not, you attacked. Spell broken.
The use of the words "indirectly" and "remotely" have very clear ramifications on the Invisibility spell. The invisible creature cannot directly harm any other creature. He can cause harm to come to other creatures through intermediaries. A trap isn't an intermediary if it is used as a weapon like you describe. If used as a weapon, a trap is a weapon. When used as a weapon, a trap breaks Invisibility.
Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action. Here I'll even quote it:
Standard Actions
Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.
[b]Attack[/b[]
Making an attack is a standard action.
Now please show where activating a trap is an attack action (You can't, because it isn't). Or where a trap is:
"any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe"
(Again you can't because is it isn't.)
Therefore: Activating a trap does not break invisibility.
So your argument is pretty much finished.
|
|
Show me where Invisibility requires the user to make an attack action (You can't, because it doesn't).
Show me where an Attack Action is the only action that constitutes an attack (You can't, because it's not).
If casting "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" breaks Invisibility, why does using a mundane piece of offensive equipment in the exact same way not suffer the same rule? Casting a spell isn't an attack action, so why is it breaking Invisibility?
Stating that another's argument is finished only indicates that you don't have answers to the questions being raised. Try again, please. Your statements don't answer my questions.
Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action.
And if in one of my games your PC were carrying around an arrow trap mechanism and pointing it at stuff and triggering it instead of leaving it in a wall somewhere with the trigger tied to a pressure plate, my adjudication would be to run it as a weapon, make you roll an attack roll using your own ranged attack bonus, etc, as a matter of course, basically it is a crossbow at that point and no longer a trap.
Show me where Invisibility requires the user to make an attack action (You can't, because it doesn't).
Show me where an Attack Action is the only action that constitutes an attack (You can't, because it's not).
If casting "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" breaks Invisibility, why does using a mundane piece of offensive equipment in the exact same way not suffer the same rule? Casting a spell isn't an attack action, so why is it breaking Invisibility?
Stating that another's argument is finished only indicates that you don't have answers to the questions being raised. Try again, please. Your statements don't answer my questions.
... Are you serious. Read the part of the spell you quote in your post.
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.
Or did you miss the "for the purposes of this spell"? Because that is important.
I don't need to show that an attack is the only action that constitutes an attack. You need to show that it does under the rules. Otherwise it isn't. Especially since it doesn't fall under the action type labeled "attack".
Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action.And if in one of my games your PC were carrying around an arrow trap mechanism and pointing it at stuff and triggering it instead of leaving it in a wall somewhere with the trigger tied to a pressure plate, my adjudication would be to run it as a weapon, make you roll an attack roll using your own ranged attack bonus, etc, as a matter of course, basically it is a crossbow at that point and no longer a trap.
You might rule it that way, but RAW the trap would use it's own attack bonus and thus it is the trap attacking not you. It would be similar to using a crossbow, but similar and the same are well... not the same.
|
|
You might rule it that way, but RAW the trap would use it's own attack bonus and thus it is the trap attacking not you. It would be similar to using a crossbow, but similar and the same are well... not the same.Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action.And if in one of my games your PC were carrying around an arrow trap mechanism and pointing it at stuff and triggering it instead of leaving it in a wall somewhere with the trigger tied to a pressure plate, my adjudication would be to run it as a weapon, make you roll an attack roll using your own ranged attack bonus, etc, as a matter of course, basically it is a crossbow at that point and no longer a trap.
And you still have not addressed the purpose of the word "remotely" with regards to triggering a trap. If you're using a trap like a crossbow, it's going to be functionally the same for the purposes of the spell.
As a note, does the fact that the trap in question is now an "attended" object matter to your arguments?
An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws ...
2nd edition liches were immune to nonmagical weapons, and could use anti-magic field very easily. Farewell to damage.
Even if you could find a rules-legal way to create a weapon with an antimagic field, no caster is going to create one, because they'd be signing their own death warrant, sharpening the guillotine, and putting their head in the block.
Master Craftsman was made to get around this dilemma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One wizard thought "what if i make item with antimagic field? will it cancel itself out? but if it will cancel its own antimagic effect it will start working again!"
and now we have to deal with worldwound and its demons
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically Anzyr, you want to rule abuse you way to lesser greater invisibility that lets you attack while pretending with all your might that it isn't an attack?
No, he is just just pointing out a technicality. RAW and RAI are two VERY different things...
No, he is just just pointing out a technicality. RAW and RAI are two VERY different things...So basically Anzyr, you want to rule abuse you way to lesser greater invisibility that lets you attack while pretending with all your might that it isn't an attack?
Exactly so. The main point to take away from this thread is not flying lava dropping wizards, but the fact that antimagic fields are not very good against casters, because it very difficult to locate them when you are denying yourself magical means of locating creatures, difficult to reach when you are denying yourself magical means of movement (unless your a very select race), denying yourself the benefit of save enhancing (and stat enhancing) magic items, while the caster is keeping their full save DC.
So basically what you should take away from this thread is that antimagic field and I'll just quote the great Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!"