Does a failed UMD check to attack with a wand break Invisibility?

[Byakko]

Say a rogue, under the effects of an Invisibility spell, tries to attack an opponent directly with a wand, but fails the Use Magic Device check to activate it.

Does the rogue become visible?

[Texas Snyper]

My guess would be no since the spell didn't actually go off.

[Oxylepy]

"Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell."

While the item is not unattended, it is in your possession and it was not an attack on said item. However it is directed at yourself (as you possess the item), so if you consider yourself an enemy you attempted to manipulate an item possessed by the enemy, thus spoiling the spell as an attempted attack.

Otherwise, no, you don't spoil your invisibility, possibly you alert others to your presence depending on the activation technique (command word for instance). Unless a nat 1 is rolled, then the result is up to GM discretion.

[Skylancer4]

Texas Snyper wrote:

My guess would be no since the spell didn't actually go off.

Unfortunately the other side of that is, I made an attack but missed. Does that mean I'm still invisible?

I'd have to think on this particular situation further, but just because it didn't occur doesn't mean the action shouldn't count as an attack. Intent is a very real part of the game (command word activation requires intent and action cost, instead of just saying the word as a free action).

[_Ozy_]

Activating a magic item is not an attack. Attacking with a magic item is an attack. Attacking with a sword is an attack. It's attacking that breaks invisibility, not hitting.

If you fail to activate an 'attack' wand, such as magic missile, then you haven't actually attacked anyone. You may have well been uttering a command word while holding a dead stick.

[Oddman80]

Other than the fact that EVERYTHING is up to a GM, Why would a character rolling a one IN PARTICULAR be up to a GM... The rules just say the character cannot activate the wand for 24 hours. That's it.

[BigNorseWolf]

technically activating a wand isn't an attack, so you're still invisible.

Cursing at the wand may give away your position though

[Finlanderboy]

Oddman80 wrote:

The rules just say the character cannot activate the wand for 24 hours. That's it.

Only a nat 1 trying would cause this. Failing with more than a nat 1 means you just fail and can retry.

You need to make an attack to break invisibility. I would argue that no attack was made. COnsider it like this I wan to chrage across the ice and smash that bad guy. I fail my acro check on the ice and fall on my bum. The attack was never made.

You just point a wand at them with malice, but they probably do not know because you are invisibile.

[Oddman80]

Skylancer4 wrote:

Texas Snyper wrote:

My guess would be no since the spell didn't actually go off.

Unfortunately the other side of that is, I made an attack but missed. Does that mean I'm still invisible?

I'd have to think on this particular situation further, but just because it didn't occur doesn't mean the action shouldn't count as an attack. Intent is a very real part of the game (command word activation requires intent and action cost, instead of just saying the word as a free action).

if the invisible creature's sword had been affected by the glue seal spell, and it was stuck in its sheath, he would need to make a strength or combat maneuver check to pull his sword out in order to be able to attack with it. If he fails the check all he is doing is pulling on a pommel at his side.... Doing so would hardly be an attack.

Likewise, if the character with the wand fails to make the UMD check, all the person is doing is waving a harmless stick around in the air.

[MrCharisma]

Here's my take on it (and I understand that there's definitely an argument for both sides here).

Use Magic Device Says:

Quote:

Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

The way I read that is that it's akin to an archer aiming his bow but not releasing. The Charge/Arrow is still held, and no attack roll has been made, so it wouldn't break invisibility.

Imagine a game where firearms were so rare that there was no proficiency, but UMD (or Use Firearms) was used instead. If they fail the check, they don't even know how to activate the item (they try to turn the barrel instead of pulling the trigger). This isn't an attack, it's not anything (well it's a waste of an action, but otherwise nothing). In this case, I doubt you'd rule that they break invisibility.
If they pull the trigger but miss, that'd break invisibility, but until the gun goes off they're basically just pointing a stick at someone.
The same argument could be made for a wand (it really is just a stick).

In terms of game balance, someone using UMD has a chance of completely wasting their action before you even roll to hit. Adding another debuff after they've wasted their turn is pretty harsh.

I would - however - give a temporary penalty to stealth since most magic items have a command word. If they're standing there going "ALKAZAM!! ALKAZAMM DAMMIT!" people around them are going to notice something.

EDIT: Edited for grammatical mistakes =P

[Byakko]

Interesting.

So the consensus seems to be that because no magical energies sprung forth from the wand the malicious intent, desire to attack, and active effort to do so were not sufficient to break invisibility?

While I do kind of share this opinion, I wonder at what point does an attempted (but failing) effort to harm someone qualify as an actual attack.

If a blind person swings at an adjacent square, thinking a (non-existent) enemy is there, does Invisibility end? What if there actually was an enemy there and they simply missed?

Or a similar situation where an archer fires at a target, but it turns out to just be an illusion?

How about if a gunslinger tries to shoot someone but his gun misfires?

Or if a sorceress launches a lightning bolt at a target only to have it fizzle harmlessly long before it reaches the target due to an anti-magic zone? How about if they fail to cast due to wearing armor? Due to a failed concentration check? Due to SR?

[Finlanderboy]

Text for invisibility breaking:

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. 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. 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.

If you "targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe". Since the spell did not go off you could not target them. The order of events are use umd on the wand, target the spell, resolve the spell.

Since you could not get to the step of targeting it never happened.

blind swinging at an empty square I would say does nto break since there is no enemy there. If the enemy was there and they missed, yes.

I would argue an illusion is an enemy and break invisibility.

Misfiring is part of an attack and would break invisibility.

I would argue lighting bolting into an antimagic zone would break invisibility since you successfully targeted the person, the spell just did not make it.

Failing to cast would not due to the wand analogy above.