Casting while Invisible

[Ditto]

Question for the playground about the Invisibilty spell. It says:

[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.

Is there RAW (or purely subjective personal opinion, either would work!) on the effects of using the following spells while invisible:
-Obscuring mist (with foes in area of effect)
-Hypnotic pattern (with foes in area of effect)
-Hypnotic pattern (with NO foes in area of effect at the time of casting, but who later walk into it)
-Bear's Endurance (used on a foe)

[The Glyphstone]

Seems pretty explicit in the text. 1, 2, and 4 would break invisibility, as they either target a foe or include a foe in their area of effect. 3 would not, as there are no foes present at time of casting.

[Pubby]

I think the key word in the spell description is "or."


"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."

All of the instances you've listed would end the invisibility because they do directly effect or would directly effect a foe. Note, though, that a spell which causes a door to swing open, hampering the movement of a foe, would not directly effect the foe.

[King Atticus]

All of the instances you've listed would end the invisibility because they do directly effect or would directly effect a foe. Note, though, that a spell which causes a door to swing open, hampering the movement of a foe, would not directly effect the foe.

Nope, Glyph is right. You're only responsible for the area of effect when you cast a spell. If you cast into unoccupied spaces and people walk in of their own volition that isn't an attack...that's just them making bad choices.

[tyckspoon]

Question for the playground about the Invisibilty spell. It says:

Is there RAW (or purely subjective personal opinion, either would work!) on the effects of using the following spells while invisible:
-Obscuring mist (with foes in area of effect)


Note that if you don't mind ducking a couple of books, you can game this by arbitrarily declaring everybody to be an ally instead of a foe; as long as you aren't casting area buffs that just hit all of your allies, you aren't attacking (at least, not in the terms defined by the Invisibility spell) and aren't losing out on anything- most offensive spells are not Friend-or-Foe sensitive, so you can blow up your 'allies' with a Fireball or blind them with a Glitterdust just fine. Blatantly against the intent, of course.

[ericgrau]

It's mainly opinion
1. Probably breaks invis.
2. Probably breaks invis.
3. Does not break invis IMO.
4. No, b/c it has the (harmless) descriptor. Enlarge person OTOH would break the invis IMO.

[Larpus]

1. Actually, I think that Obscuring Mist wouldn't break Invis, it allows no saving and no SR, so IMHO it doesn't count as an attack or actually affecting a foe, you're just changing the ambient (just like opening a door) and the opponent is being affected by it, so this falls into the category of "summoning and have the summon attack".

2. Is an attack, so it should break.

3. Shouldn't as mentioned, you're not at fault if other people are idiots (actually, falls into the summon exception).

4. IMHO, any spell with the Harmless description can't ever be considered an attack.

[King Atticus]

1. Actually, I think that Obscuring Mist wouldn't break Invis, it allows no saving and no SR, so IMHO it doesn't count as an attack or actually affecting a foe, you're just changing the ambient (just like opening a door) and the opponent is being affected by it, so this falls into the category of "summoning and have the summon attack".

2. Is an attack, so it should break.

3. Shouldn't as mentioned, you're not at fault if other people are idiots (actually, falls into the summon exception).

4. IMHO, any spell with the Harmless description can't ever be considered an attack.


For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

According to the specific wording in the spell text it doesn't matter if it damages or not. For the purposes of the invisibility spell if you target a foe or the area includes a foe it's an attack. Good, bad or indifferent you cast a spell and it touches an enemy when you cast it and your invisibilty ends. The only exception is area effects that only affect friendlies, like bless.


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.

[Safety Sword]

Sorry... but I have to ask...

Why on Ao's green Forgotten Realms would you want to cast Bear's Endurance on a foe?

[candycorn]

I think the key word in the spell description is "or."



All of the instances you've listed would end the invisibility because they do directly effect or would directly effect a foe. Note, though, that a spell which causes a door to swing open, hampering the movement of a foe, would not directly effect the foe.

You misinterpret.
The spell's area OR the spell's effect.

"Effect includes a foe" does not translate that way.

Example of an effect spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bladeBarrier.htm).

If the effect of the Blade Barrier includes a foe? You become visible.

Effect is a reserved game term, used in the description of spell function. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#effect)

It's not used to describe what you're trying to.

[candycorn]

1. Actually, I think that Obscuring Mist wouldn't break Invis, it allows no saving and no SR, so IMHO it doesn't count as an attack or actually affecting a foe, you're just changing the ambient (just like opening a door) and the opponent is being affected by it, so this falls into the category of "summoning and have the summon attack".

4. IMHO, any spell with the Harmless description can't ever be considered an attack.

Both are irrelevant. Both can break invisibility.

Obscuring mist:
Effect: Cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you, 20 ft. high
If that Effect includes a foe, it is an attack, as far as invisibility is concerned.


For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
So: If a spell targets a foe, it's an attack.
If the spell has an area, an that area includes a foe, it's an attack.
If the spell has an effect, and that effect includes a foe, it's an attack.

The [Harmless] descriptor is irrelevant to this. After all, Cure light wounds has that descriptor. I doubt an undead would agree that it's not an attack.

[NNescio]

Sorry... but I have to ask...

Why on Ao's green Forgotten Realms would you want to cast Bear's Endurance on a foe?

You... want to capture them alive, and don't have any other spells to use? Or if you want to take advantage of effects like Reciprocal Gyre that penalizes buffs? Or, perhaps, you want to identify disguised undead/constructs, and again, there's no other spell available?

...All of the above are freaking contrived though. At least Fox's Cunning has more uses.