PDA

View Full Version : In regards to invisibility, is counterspelling an aggressive action? (3.5)



Eladrinblade
2010-03-07, 07:10 AM
Can I counterspell and remain invisible?

I know greater invisibility makes this not matter, but I'm curious.

Mastikator
2010-03-07, 07:15 AM
I'd say defensive. Like a monk snatching an arrow, it's active not non-aggressive.
Don't know the significance of the difference in terms of rules. But since you are directly interacting with someone else, it removes your invisibility. That's at least how I understand it. (I've never understood the logic behind it being a matter of attacking, and not directly interacting with something visible, for the record I don't think balance-logic overrides "makes sense"-logics.)

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 07:21 AM
When a monk deflects an arrow, he doesn't break the arrow while it's being fired.

Counterspelling is an active disruption of a hostile character's action. It's ambiguous, but I'd rule it breaks invisibility.

Myou
2010-03-07, 07:24 AM
When a monk deflects an arrow, he doesn't break the arrow while it's being fired.

Counterspelling is an active disruption of a hostile character's action. It's ambiguous, but I'd rule it breaks invisibility.

I agree, it should break invisibility.

Jack_Simth
2010-03-07, 01:06 PM
I agree, it should break invisibility.

Ah, but read what's required of invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) breaking:

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). 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.) 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. (emphasis added)

When you're counterspelling, you're targeting a spell. Is the spell more like a foe, or more like an unattended object?

Jastermereel
2010-03-07, 01:09 PM
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.)


To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)
Both excerpts from the dandwiki.com

So yeah, Counterspell, which is a spell targeting an opponent*, ends invisibility.

*Unless we want to debate "opponent" and "foe" being different terms by RAW :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Curses! Ninjaed as I worked on the quotes!

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 02:21 PM
Ah, but read what's required of invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) breaking:
(emphasis added)

When you're counterspelling, you're targeting a spell. Is the spell more like a foe, or more like an unattended object?
The effect disrupts an opponent's action.

Does the counterspell's effect include a foe? There's the ambiguous part.

However, the counterspell does not target a spell, but a caster, as pointed out.


To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.)

If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things.
This makes it quite clear that a counterspell action targets the caster, not the spell.

Fitz10019
2010-03-07, 02:24 PM
For RAW, I'd say yes, Invisibility ends.

For RAI, I'd say no, Invisibility continues. I'd rule that, for intent of Invisibility not ending because of indirect actions, counterspelling is sufficiently indirect as an action against an enemy caster.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 02:34 PM
For RAW, I'd say yes, Invisibility ends.

For RAI, I'd say no, Invisibility continues. I'd rule that, for intent of Invisibility not ending because of indirect actions, counterspelling is sufficiently indirect as an action against an enemy caster.

What? Directly disrupting their actions is indirect?

This isn't like cutting a bridge that someone's standing on.
It's far closer to using Stand Still when someone tries to move.

Kalirren
2010-03-07, 02:37 PM
Isn't there a rule about having to incant loudly to cast a spell? Presumably you have to incant loudly to counterspell one being cast as well.


To complete the [counterspell] action, you must then cast the correct spell.

Forever Curious
2010-03-07, 02:39 PM
Isn't there a rule about having to incant loudly to cast a spell? Presumably you have to incant loudly to counterspell one being cast as well.

Silent Spell.

lsfreak
2010-03-07, 02:40 PM
Isn't there a rule about having to incant loudly to cast a spell? Presumably you have to incant loudly to counterspell one being cast as well.

Not loudly, no. And speaking doesn't break invisibility anywho, and though it does give away your position, you've still got 50% miss chance even if they target your square.

Fitz10019
2010-03-07, 04:00 PM
What? Directly disrupting their actions is indirect?

This isn't like cutting a bridge that someone's standing on.
It's far closer to using Stand Still when someone tries to move.

My argument is that you're acting against their spell, not the person themselves. At the end of your action, the person is unharmed, unchanged (other than annoyed, but far less annoyed than that guy on a collapsing bridge). In the Stand Still example, the person is restrained, and I see that as direct action. If your Light spell makes no Light, you are unaffected. If your Cure spell cured nothing, you are unaffected.

I think an invisible counterspelling would be a very effective form of passive resistence. Admittedly, I'm willfully ignoring the fact that by RAW counterspell targets the caster.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 04:24 PM
My argument is that you're acting against their spell, not the person themselves. At the end of your action, the person is unharmed, unchanged (other than annoyed, but far less annoyed than that guy on a collapsing bridge). In the Stand Still example, the person is restrained, and I see that as direct action. If your Light spell makes no Light, you are unaffected. If your Cure spell cured nothing, you are unaffected.No, you're not restrained. Your move action is prevented.

In counterspelling, your action is directly stopped. Directly. Not indirectly. It's not a passive action. Note: The action does not need to be offensive to be an attack. If it affects an enemy, it's an attack. When someone takes an action, and you prevent them from completing that action, you are affecting them.

Spells aren't things. They can't be targeted. Some spell effects can, but you cannot act against a spell, any more than you can attack comfort.

What you are doing is disrupting the action of casting the spell. You are disrupting the opponent's action. Directly. That's what you're doing.

Any argument otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to twist the rules to act as you want them to work, not how they should work, and certainly not how they DO work.

I think an invisible counterspelling would be a very effective form of passive resistence. Admittedly, I'm willfully ignoring the fact that by RAW counterspell targets the caster.
If you have a greater invisibility spell, it's a great thing.

Admittedly, you're ignoring RAW, twisting meanings, giving form to concepts and ideas (a prepared spell exists only in a caster's mind, a spell that's being cast exists only in a caster's actions).

Which is why I have so much trouble making sense of your opinion. I can't see any valid reasoning in it.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-07, 05:08 PM
At the end of your action, the person is unharmed
That's not guaranteed. If they're in the area of Acid Fog and you counterspell their attempt to cast Energy Immunity (acid), you're certainly causing them harm.

Your argument only holds together with a whole bunch of assumptions. I'd rather just stick to the RAW, which PhoenixRivers nicely cited.

Defiant
2010-03-07, 07:33 PM
Is a counterspell an attack?

The answer to that question is the answer to the title question.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-07, 07:41 PM
Ah, but read what's required of invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm) breaking:
(emphasis added)

When you're counterspelling, you're targeting a spell. Is the spell more like a foe, or more like an unattended object?
I'd say it's an attended object, since it's with the target characters. An unattended object is something not being held/worn/etc. Casting grease on a table doesn't break invisibility, casting grease on a sword on top of the table doesn't. Casting grease on a sword in a character's hand, or hilt, does.
Same with counterspelling a spell on someone, but not on something, like disabling a magic trap.

AbyssKnight
2010-03-07, 08:29 PM
I would agree that RAW Counterspell says it targets the other caster, and thus would break Invisiblity.

However, I think PhoenixRivers is being unneccessarily ad hominem when saying "Any argument otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to twist the rules to act as you want them to work, not how they should work, and certainly not how they DO work."

Counterspelling to definately seems an indirect way of affecting an enemy. For support I will look at the Dispel Magic spell. You have three options for target with Dispel Magic: area, person, or spell. So under the rules of Invisibility, the area (if enemy is in the area) and person targets would be attacks, but targeting a spell directly is not an attack. Note that this would be the case even if the spell you are targeting is one currently buffing an enemy since it isn't targeting the foe itself or creating an area which includes the foe.

While Counterspelling, RAW, targets the caster what it does actually only affects the spell itself.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-07, 08:49 PM
While Counterspelling, RAW, targets the caster what it does actually only directly affects the spell itself.
I fixed that for you. There are lots of ways that counterspelling can cause harm, such as my Energy Immunity (acid) example.

Here's an analogy: you sunder someone's sword. You're not hurting them directly. But is it an attack? Darn tootin'!

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 11:16 PM
I would agree that RAW Counterspell says it targets the other caster, and thus would break Invisiblity.

However, I think PhoenixRivers is being unneccessarily ad hominem when saying "Any argument otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to twist the rules to act as you want them to work, not how they should work, and certainly not how they DO work."And I feel that you're bein unnecessarily deceptive and inaccurate in your descriptions.


Counterspelling to definately seems an indirect way of affecting an enemy. For support I will look at the Dispel Magic spell. You have three options for target with Dispel Magic: area, person, or spell. So under the rules of Invisibility, the area (if enemy is in the area) and person targets would be attacks, but targeting a spell directly is not an attack. Note that this would be the case even if the spell you are targeting is one currently buffing an enemy since it isn't targeting the foe itself or creating an area which includes the foe.Correct. Targeting an individual spell effect for dispelling would not break invisibility. This is done often for spells that cannot be dispelled with area dispels (such as Symbol of Death, for example, or Lesser Globe of Invulnerability).

However:
Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Look up "hamper". To interfere with, to impede. That's pretty much the definition of what you do with a counterspell.

While Counterspelling, RAW, targets the caster what it does actually only affects the spell itself.Wrong. At the time of casting, there are no independent spell effects. The spell exists entirely in the action being taken. The action being taken by the caster. The caster's action, that you are interfering with, impeding.

It's pretty open and shut. The spell, at the counterspell point, is not independent of the caster. Counterspelling doesn't stop a spell. It stops the CASTING of a spell. It stops an action. That's the distinction that you're leaving out. That's the distinction that puts the entire "indirect" argument into the realm of foolishness. You are directly stopping someone's action, same as Stand Still.

RAW is crystal clear on this. A strong argument can be made for RAI matching, at a bare minimum. When this is the case, why look to create problems that don't exist?

faceroll
2010-03-07, 11:25 PM
No, you're not restrained. Your move action is prevented.

In counterspelling, your action is directly stopped. Directly. Not indirectly. It's not a passive action. Note: The action does not need to be offensive to be an attack. If it affects an enemy, it's an attack. When someone takes an action, and you prevent them from completing that action, you are affecting them.

Spells aren't things. They can't be targeted. Some spell effects can, but you cannot act against a spell, any more than you can attack comfort.

What you are doing is disrupting the action of casting the spell. You are disrupting the opponent's action. Directly. That's what you're doing.

Any argument otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to twist the rules to act as you want them to work, not how they should work, and certainly not how they DO work.

If you have a greater invisibility spell, it's a great thing.

Admittedly, you're ignoring RAW, twisting meanings, giving form to concepts and ideas (a prepared spell exists only in a caster's mind, a spell that's being cast exists only in a caster's actions).

Which is why I have so much trouble making sense of your opinion. I can't see any valid reasoning in it.

Why do you take rejection of the RAW so personally?

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-07, 11:35 PM
Why do you take rejection of the RAW so personally?

I don't. I'm fine with banning drownhealing, making monks proficient with unarmed strikes, and the like.

I am not arguing about the rejection of RAW. I've been a "reason over RAW" DM for a long time, when it comes to the unreasonable.

What I'm arguing here isn't a rejection of RAW. It's a rejection of fact and reason. As is stated in the last line you quoted.

And I'm not taking it personally. No "all caps", no anger, no accusations. Merely a refuting of a lack of reason. Let's not try to make this about the people, please? I much prefer discussing the subject. Most people who have played under me (several who are actually on these forums) will acknowledge that I am not a slave to the RAW. I'm not going to indulge further lines of inquiry that infer negative things about me or my playstyle.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-07, 11:43 PM
Why do you take rejection of the RAW so personally? It's not personal. The thing is, the written rules are the only commonality we in this forum have. The OP asked a question, and PhoenixRivers found a clear answer in the rules. Then things suddenly got onto a discussion about what people would like the rules to be, instead, with vigorous hand-waving about how if you squint and look sideways you might be able to see how to get there. :smallconfused:

Personally, I think any discussion of house rules is better if you start a new topic, rather than taking a detour from a straightforward RAW question.

faceroll
2010-03-07, 11:44 PM
oh, nevermind.

AbyssKnight
2010-03-08, 12:01 AM
I fixed that for you. There are lots of ways that counterspelling can cause harm, such as my Energy Immunity (acid) example.

Actually I disagree that with that premise. The acid is causing the harm, the counterspell is only preventing something from stopping the damage from happening. But the counterspell still isn't inflicting any of the damage.

But you can stay invisible even if you are indirectly causing harm anyway, as the invisibility spell notes itself.

PhoenixRivers, I don't see what you feel I was being inaccurate about. I admit that RAW counterspelling says it targets the caster so breaks invisibility. I simply make an argument that I am not convinced that should be the case.

Counterspelling doesn't hamper the target. Entangle hampers a target, Slow hampers a target. Counterspelling isn't preventing an action, you still cast the spell. The spell is simply immediately undone. And it is contradictory that you agree that Dispel Magic targeting a spell is not an attack but counterspelling is an attack since they both "hamper" the target by your definition.

And no the counterspell doesn't prevent an action, because the spell being countered is still cast. It only prevents the spell from having an effect.


If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results.

Wow, that certainly sounds like the only result affects the spell itself and not the caster. You haven't impeded him from taking an action, though the result is changed, he doesn't get a save, it deals no damage in itself.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-08, 01:23 AM
Actually I disagree that with that premise. The acid is causing the harm, the counterspell is only preventing something from stopping the damage from happening. But the counterspell still isn't inflicting any of the damage.
Oh, come on. OK, let's try this instead. A Favored Soul's trapped in a dungeon, completely naked: no gear, no divine focus, and no spell component pouch. The FS is hungry and thirsty, but they know Create Food and Water (verbal and somatic components only) -- which you keep counterspelling. You're not harming them?

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 02:32 AM
Oh, come on. OK, let's try this instead. A Favored Soul's trapped in a dungeon, completely naked: no gear, no divine focus, and no spell component pouch. The FS is hungry and thirsty, but they know Create Food and Water (verbal and somatic components only) -- which you keep counterspelling. You're not harming them?

Harming isn't required. Hampering can. If you are limiting their ability to act, you are hampering them. Counterspell prevents actions. It doesn't target spells, it doesn't affect spells (that's dispelling). It affects the action of casting a spell. You are impeding his action.

Note: Impede doesn't mean all out stop. If weeds impede your movement, it's possible that they limit or slow.

You are directly affecting someone's action while targeting them directly with an ability that, even under lax reading of RAW, qualifies as an offensive action. And it makes sense too!

This isn't Rules As Intended.
It's Rules As You Wish They Were.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2010-03-08, 02:37 AM
An action against someone or something is aggressive. Even if it's defensive. Hence why inaction is called passive.

Lysander
2010-03-08, 02:45 AM
Counterspelling counts as targeting an opponent with a spell, which explicitly ends invisibility. Whether or not it harms them isn't the issue. You can do a lot of harm and remain invisible, including things like summoning monsters to attack them.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-08, 02:50 AM
Also imagine for a moment your a PC and a couple of invisible casters keep counter-spelling you.
How much would that tick you off?

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 02:55 AM
Actually, I've done a dispel/counter schtick under a Greater Invisibility. It works well.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-08, 03:04 AM
But say it was done to you using regular invisibility wouldn't that piss you off.

Lysander
2010-03-08, 03:06 AM
That's a good time to cast a quickened spell.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 03:19 AM
But say it was done to you using regular invisibility wouldn't that piss you off.

No. Because then they'd be visible, as they just took an action that breaks invisibility.

Runestar
2010-03-08, 03:31 AM
That's a good time to cast a quickened spell.

Which can be dispelled as well.


Also imagine for a moment your a PC and a couple of invisible casters keep counter-spelling you.
How much would that tick you off?

They are wasting standard actions and spell slots which could otherwise be used to do some other funny thing like blasting the party, mazing the cleric or putting the fighter in a forcecage.

I would actually be glad if they chose to counterspell over other possible actions.

Killer Angel
2010-03-08, 03:35 AM
What? Directly disrupting their actions is indirect?

This isn't like cutting a bridge that someone's standing on.
It's far closer to using Stand Still when someone tries to move.

Well, for all that matters, summoning creature with the purpose to attack and killing an opponent, is pretty a direct hostile move, but you don't became visible because the damage is "indirect". The fact that is in the spell's description, don't negate (to me) the feeling of a lawyer's dirty trick.

By RAW, Invisibility certainly ends, if you do a counterspell.
By RAI, I can see a house rule in this sense.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-08, 03:43 AM
Harming isn't required. Hampering can.
Oh, I agree completely. It's just that I think some counterspelling goes beyond to the point of doing actual harm. Just saying.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 03:47 AM
Well, for all that matters, summoning creature with the purpose to attack and killing an opponent, is pretty a direct hostile move, but you don't became visible because the damage is "indirect". The fact that is in the spell's description, don't negate (to me) the feeling of a lawyer's dirty trick.

By RAW, Invisibility certainly ends, if you do a counterspell.
By RAI, I can see a house rule in this sense.

It's another actual creature doing the harming. You don't directly control it in most instances. It's like opening the door to a cage of wild dogs.

Killer Angel
2010-03-08, 03:53 AM
It's another actual creature doing the harming. You don't directly control it in most instances. It's like opening the door to a cage of wild dogs.

What if I directly decide what type of attacks the summoned creature will do? I can give instructions, after all. This begin to be a more direct action, from the summoner.

Correction of my previous statement: probably to leave active the invisibility, with a counterspell action, is not RAI, but can be used as a reasonable house rule.

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 04:14 AM
Correction of my previous statement: probably to leave active the invisibility, with a counterspell action, is not RAI, but can be used as a reasonable house rule.

Now, we're in agreement.

Fitz10019
2010-03-08, 05:04 AM
Personally, I think any discussion of house rules is better if you start a new topic, rather than taking a detour from a straightforward RAW question.

As this isn't the RAW thread, it's absurd to say opinions belong in another thread. Even if the OP asked for RAW (which he didn't), this is a community for discussion.


And I feel that you're bein unnecessarily deceptive and inaccurate in your descriptions.

Counterspelling to definately seems an indirect ...
This is a misquote. These are AbyssKnight's statements intentionally relabelled as mine!

Counterspelling to definately seems an indirect ...

Maybe it was hard to believe more than one person holds a contradictory opinion.

I concede that my position on counterspelling/invisibility is past the point of 'interpretation' and in the realm of 'houserule.'

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 05:13 AM
As this isn't the RAW thread, it's absurd to say opinions belong in another thread. Even if the OP asked for RAW (which he didn't), this is a community for discussion.He asked if he could do something. As I seriously doubt anyone here can comment intelligently on what particular houserules his DM wants, that leaves little more than RAW to go on.


This is a misquote. These are AbyssKnight's statements intentionally relabelled as mine!


Maybe it was hard to believe more than one person holds a contradictory opinion.LMAO. Intentionally? Are you honestly going to try to soapbox and claim to know more about my intent than I?

Wouldn't it be, say, in the realm of possibility (since I did actively quote both of you in the post you refer to, with links that refer to each of you), that a Copy/paste error is more likely (as I use copy/paste to retain the original name/link in subsequent posts), rather than deliberate malicious intent to besmirch your good name? Hm?


I concede that my position on counterspelling/invisibility is past the point of 'interpretation' and in the realm of 'houserule.'Indeed, it is.

unre9istered
2010-03-08, 07:36 AM
So you counterspelling breaks invisibility by RAW, what about if a Ring of Counterspells does the counterspelling? What if someone hits you while you're invisible and have a Fire Shield up which burns them? Do either or both of these break invisibility?

PhoenixRivers
2010-03-08, 07:44 AM
So you counterspelling breaks invisibility by RAW, what about if a Ring of Counterspells does the counterspelling? What if someone hits you while you're invisible and have a Fire Shield up which burns them? Do either or both of these break invisibility?

If a ring of counterspells is the cause of the counter, then you did not target an opponent. Your invisibility stays.

If they hit you, and you have fire shield, it does break invisibility, by RAW (though a reasonable houserule could reverse that).

Source:
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.
Emphasis mine. If a spell deals damage to an opponent, it's considered an attack.

Fitz10019
2010-03-08, 08:34 AM
As I seriously doubt anyone here can comment intelligently on what particular houserules his DM wants, that leaves little more than RAW to go on.

As long as someone does not disguise his opinions as RAW when they are not, it is inappropriate (and bad manners) to discourage someone from expressing his opinion.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-08, 09:34 AM
So you counterspelling breaks invisibility by RAW, what about if a Ring of Counterspells does the counterspelling? What if someone hits you while you're invisible and have a Fire Shield up which burns them? Do either or both of these break invisibility?

Probably. But frankly, in either of these situations, it doesn't matter much anyway, as you're already being targetted, and thus, something has gone wrong. Ring of counterspells has a much better case for not breaking, though, since technically, the ring is casting the spell, not you.

Counterspelling obviously breaks invisibility. This is what greater invis is for.

Lysander
2010-03-08, 09:41 AM
I'd also rule that fire shield would give away your position since the fire would cast at least some light. You'd still have concealment though.

Jayabalard
2010-03-08, 09:50 AM
The thing is, the written rules are the only commonality we in this forum have. Really, they're not. Not everyone uses them, so they're not a point of commonality at all. You can't even assume D&D as a point of commonality for this forum. The only point of commonality in this particular forum is that everyone plays Roleplaying games.

It's more than a little absurd to insist that people stick to the holy book of RAW in any thread that is not explicitly marked as such by the OP.

For this specific thread ("can I do this"), I don't see the RAW rulings as any more useful for the OP than people's opinions. The discussion has shown that the rules themselves are ambiguous enough, and contradict what people thing of as "making sense" enough, so that it's not safe to assume that any pronunciation by the high priests of RAW is going to be useful to the OP; there's a fairly good chance that the OP's GM is going to make a ruling one way or another, and the only real answer is "ask your DM".

Tyndmyr
2010-03-08, 09:56 AM
Really, they're not. Not everyone uses them, so they're not a point of commonality at all. You can't even assume D&D as a point of commonality for this forum. The only point of commonality in this particular forum is that everyone plays Roleplaying games.

It's more than a little absurd to insist that people stick to the holy book of RAW in any thread that is not explicitly marked as such by the OP.

By your logic, we shouldn't stick to D&D either unless it's marked as such.

The vast majority of people here play D&D, especially 3.5. In lieu of information to the contrary, assuming the most likely option is quite rational.

Likewise, the vast majority of people here at least have the rulebooks, and mostly use them. House rules vary widely between people, and are vastly less of a commonality than RAW is. Thus, unless the thread is marked otherwise(ie, rate my house rules, etc), it's completely rational to assume RAW.

Edit to respond to your edit: No, the rules are not vague with regards to the question he asked. You need to blatantly ignore RAW to arrive at a different conclusion.

Jayabalard
2010-03-08, 10:04 AM
By your logic, we shouldn't stick to D&D either unless it's marked as such.I don't, unless it's either marked as or explicitly stated in the text to be about D&D, and not even always then. Most gaming concepts are not specific to D&D, and talking about how those things work in other games, both from a rules/how it works and from a strictly fluff perspective, often has value.


You need to blatantly ignore RAW to arrive at a different conclusion.If so (and I have no opinion on the matter), it's obvious, based on the discussion, there are people that think that blatantly ignoring RAW makes more sense.


What if someone hits you while you're invisible and have a Fire Shield up which burns them? It might just be me, but it doesn't seem to be such a great idea to cast a spell that wreaths you in flames and glow like a torch if you want to remain invisible


As I seriously doubt anyone here can comment intelligently on what particular houserules his DM wants, that leaves little more than RAW to go on.Speculating that his DM will have house rules for the situation is just as valid as speculating that his DM won't have house rules for the situation.

Curmudgeon
2010-03-08, 10:21 AM
Personally, I think any discussion of house rules is better if you start a new topic, rather than taking a detour from a straightforward RAW question.

As this isn't the RAW thread, it's absurd to say opinions belong in another thread.
:smile:

As I was explicitly expressing an opinion about posting styles, I find this hilarious!

:smile:

Tyndmyr
2010-03-08, 10:29 AM
Speculating that his DM will have house rules for the situation is just as valid as speculating that his DM won't have house rules for the situation.

It's not. RAW is well understood. House rules have near-infinite variance.

Therefore, for the binary question of "does his DM have house rules for this situation?" either side has a reasonable chance of being right.

For the open ended question of "What particular house rules does this DM have?", with no information given, there are near-infinite number of possible answers, meaning there is almost no chance of any guess being correct. You'll notice that this is what Phoenix was describing.

It's quite clear that opting for RAW has a much higher chance of being relevant to the OP than guessing wildly does.