Always Invisible spell?

[MesiDoomstalker]

Why whould a prepared caster with Invisible Spell metamagic (Cityscape, pg 61) not prepare all non-illusion spells as Invisible spells? Its +0 and eliminates all visual effects of the spell. Secondly, how would Invisible Spell affect things like Enlargre Person or Flesh to Stone? Would the target look like nothing happened? Or would it not have a visible (or invisible) effect?

[Flickerdart]

Why whould a prepared caster with Invisible Spell metamagic (Cityscape, pg 61) not prepare all non-illusion spells as Invisible spells?
Because not everybody takes it? Many optimized builds are very feat-starved, and spending a precious feat on having all your spells be invisible is a feat not spent on making them more effective.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Because not everybody takes it? Many optimized builds are very feat-starved, and spending a precious feat on having all your spells be invisible is a feat not spent on making them more effective.

I specifically mentioned a caster who already possessed the feat. I know its not the most optimal. Thats not what I asked. I asked why a prepared caster who already had the feat not just spam it on everything non-illusion?

[tyckspoon]

Because it's really nice to know where those Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire, or other persistent AoE nastiness actually are so the rest of your party doesn't walk into them and you don't forget about them and walk into them too. Also to avoid exploding your DM's brain when he has to figure out what the heck Invisible Spell does to anything that isn't a damaging Evocation; it's a really poorly-thought out feat.

[Ernir]

I specifically mentioned a caster who already possessed the feat. I know its not the most optimal. Thats not what I asked. I asked why a prepared caster who already had the feat not just spam it on everything non-illusion?
The mechanics do not discourage doing so.

Practicalities might, but you could do that if you want to.

[Tyndmyr]

I specifically mentioned a caster who already possessed the feat. I know its not the most optimal. Thats not what I asked. I asked why a prepared caster who already had the feat not just spam it on everything non-illusion?

Because, sometimes you want people to see what you're casting. For fear, for notification to allies, or just so people don't realize you have the capability.

Also, sometimes you want a regular solid fog instead of an invisible one. Blocking LOS is a mechanical effect.

Yes, it will likely be used a lot. Not always, though.

[JaronK]

Honestly, it's a terribly thought out feat. Half the time it's very confusing as to what it's supposed to actually do (does Invisible Summon Monster summon an invisible creature, or is there just no puff of smoke when the creature pops up? One is irrelevant, the other overpowered). Honestly, it's one of those concepts like the Arcane Swordsage where we all just throw our hands up and say "whatever!"

JaronK

[MesiDoomstalker]

Because it's really nice to know where those Black Tentacles, Wall of Fire, or other persistent AoE nastiness actually are so the rest of your party doesn't walk into them and you don't forget about them and walk into them too. Also to avoid exploding your DM's brain when he has to figure out what the heck Invisible Spell does to anything that isn't a damaging Evocation; it's a really poorly-thought out feat.

Pfft, who cares if my allies. :smalltongue: And a permencied Detect Magic will fix any problems for yourself. It doesn't say you have to concentrate to see the effects just have Detect Magic up to see its effect.

[Daftendirekt]

I suddenly remembered the Invisible Books of Invisibility mentioned in Harry Potter, and imagined a wizard preparing Invisible Invisibility.

[CTrees]

Honestly, it's a terribly thought out feat. Half the time it's very confusing as to what it's supposed to actually do (does Invisible Summon Monster summon an invisible creature, or is there just no puff of smoke when the creature pops up? One is irrelevant, the other overpowered). Honestly, it's one of those concepts like the Arcane Swordsage where we all just throw our hands up and say "whatever!"

JaronK

Invisible Astral Projection, from my Invisible Genesis'd demiplane! Invisible PAO to transform into an Invisible dragon! Invisible Light! Yo Dawg, we cast Invisible Invisibility, so you can be invisible while you're invisible!

Okay that last one might not work (though it's funny). Still, there are some hilarious uses, like Invisible Permanent Prismatic Wall*.

*the surgeon general advises DMs against using Invisible Prismatic Walls as traps, as this may be hazardous to the health, with effects up to and including death by bludgeoning with PHBs.

[Daftendirekt]

Okay that last one might not work (though it's funny). Still, there are some hilarious uses, like Invisible Permanent Prismatic Wall

Okay, I need to do this now. Particularly, with my Io7V that I'm (hopefully) going to be playing soon.

[Psyren]

For your DM's sake, pretend it doesn't exist. Or use it in one session for giggles and prepare for the banhammer.

[MikolasTheAngry]

Go Looney Tunes with it.

Invisible Passwall. Walk through. Dismiss/dispel it afterward. Laugh as you hear your pursuers run facefirst into a solid rock wall.

[herrhauptmann]

Why not just a silent image of you walking into an illusory door/hallway. (So you're probably already using an improved invisibility) They'll try to follow, and run into a wall. That's much more looney tuney.

[Incanur]

Invisible summons aren't that ridiculous. Most of the time, you want your enemies to target them so they don't target you. Sure, the +2 (or more) to hit is nice. Eventually see invisibility becomes standard so it's not a big deal. Even freaking barbarians get access to the ability as an ACF.

[Piggy Knowles]

If you go to sleep in an invisible Secure Shelter, do you also become invisible, or will you appear as a floating body? More importantly, will you even be able to find the beds?

[Dr.Epic]

You could just get a ring of invisibility. What's wrong with that?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oamkT1dusRU/TOpOfqugkZI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7ez3rtqns7s/s1600/frodo2.jpg

I could give you a detailed summery. You got 12 hours?

[Jack_Simth]

Why whould a prepared caster with Invisible Spell metamagic (Cityscape, pg 61) not prepare all non-illusion spells as Invisible spells? Its +0 and eliminates all visual effects of the spell. Secondly, how would Invisible Spell affect things like Enlargre Person or Flesh to Stone? Would the target look like nothing happened? Or would it not have a visible (or invisible) effect?

Let's see... most of these have already been said....
1) Blocking Line-of-Sight has some very useful game-mechanics attached to it. No targetted spells if they can't see you due to line-of-sight, 50% miss chance for any attack-roll based stuff if they can't see you do to line-of-sight (and that assumes that they pick the correct square, which is not a given).
2) Certain things you want people to see. Summons, for instance, are much more likely to soak up people's AoO's and attacks if the people can see them to AoO them and attack them. If you don't want to be roasted by your party members, you'll also want to arrange for them to avoid any area hazards you put into play. Other times, you want people to be impressed by the effect.
3) Certain things will give your DM a headache... and you don't want him to take it out on you(r character). Does an Invisible Spell (Clone) raise someone from the dead as Greater Invisible, in an Instant manner that persists in an Antimagic Field? What does Invisible Spell (any noticeable transmutation, such as Polymorph or Enlarge Person) do in practice? Does an Invisible Regeneration give someone an invisible arm? And so on. The feat has the potential to get surprisingly overpowered... or virtually worthless, depending on what you consider the visual effect of a spell to be, exactly.

[JaronK]

Invisible summons aren't that ridiculous. Most of the time, you want your enemies to target them so they don't target you. Sure, the +2 (or more) to hit is nice. Eventually see invisibility becomes standard so it's not a big deal. Even freaking barbarians get access to the ability as an ACF.

Persistent Invisible Obscuring Mist. Don't have See Invis. Everyone who does can't target you. Everyone who doesn't gets attacked by your invisible Animate Dead created undead army. Cackle madly (note: mad cackling is required for all undead armies).

JaronK

[Chilingsworth]

Wait, don't many spells have an "effect" line in the discription? For those that do, invisible spell makes that effect invisible, whatever it is. For those that don't, invisible spell is not appicable. Would that be a fair reading/ruling?

[Incanur]

Persistent Invisible Obscuring Mist. Don't have See Invis. Everyone who does can't target you.

That's not how see invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) works. True seeing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm), maybe.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Wait, don't many spells have an "effect" line in the discription? For those that do, invisible spell makes that effect invisible, whatever it is. For those that don't, invisible spell is not appicable. Would that be a fair reading/ruling?

Not completly. The example used in the feat description is Fireball which does not have an effect line. But, any spell with an effect line will (probably) be what becomes Invisified.

[Sith_Happens]

Also to avoid exploding your DM's brain when he has to figure out what the heck Invisible Spell does to anything that isn't a damaging Evocation; it's a really poorly-thought out feat.

Yeah, the thought process for that feat probably went something like this:

"Hey, you know what would be awesome? If you could make your spells invisible so people don't know you're the one blowing things up. After all, the only spells that exist in this game are instantaneous Evocations, right? ...Right?"

Of course, allegedly that's how 3.5 was playtested/"balanced" in the first place, so it's not totally surprising that the above would happen.

[Tyndmyr]

Persistent Invisible Obscuring Mist. Don't have See Invis. Everyone who does can't target you. Everyone who doesn't gets attacked by your invisible Animate Dead created undead army. Cackle madly (note: mad cackling is required for all undead armies).

JaronK

The good news is...persistent detect magic.

Also, you can't see anyone invisible either.

(Assuming the above is in reference to true seeing at high levels).

Combat this way is awesome and extremely tactical. Personally, I love the feat. It rewards the creative, and doesn't just boil down to "lol, more numbers" like so many feats do. I wish more feats were like it.

[Keegan__D]

For summon spells, wouldn't it be the portal that's invisible? Regeneration and Raise Dead would be whatever glowy stuff you emit when you bring them back, right?
I think the power of this lies in damage spells. If they don't know it's coming (because you're hidden), then they're flat-footed, and wouldn't get a reflex save.
Wouldn't Polymorph would leave you looking like you, but with the size and abilities of the creature you become? If you go small, and a foe doesn't know, attacking where your head/torso are would miss. A scaling miss chance for sizes (until the foe learns of your deception), plus size modifier to AC. Going big would just give you size penalties, or maybe even a reverse-scaling chart for if they miss you. Or a miss/hit-by-# chart?

I think I've got to agree with Psyren and just ignore the feat, unless you have a home-brew-loving DM. Or be kind and use it for the intent it was created with.

[Jack_Simth]

For summon spells, wouldn't it be the portal that's invisible? Regeneration and Raise Dead would be whatever glowy stuff you emit when you bring them back, right?The problem is that it's not clearly defined. The relevant wording in Invisible Spell is "You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation."

So it depends on what's considered to be the "visual manifestation" of a given spell. Is the summon itself part of the visual manifestation of a Summoning spell? Is looking whole and healthy part of the visual manifestation of a Resurrection spell? This is not clearly defined anywhere.

So under one DM, the feat can be used by a high-level Cleric to give someone what amounts to non-magical constant invisibility (Invisible Spell(True Resurrection) when you don't have the corpse). Under another DM, this just means the living person appears with none of the normal non-mechanical movie effects that would normally accompany the spell (note: there are no non-mechanical movie effects for the vast majority of spells defined in the actual rules-as-written).

So under one DM, the feat has some ridiculously nice uses (anything the spell does is considered part of the 'visual manifestation' of the spell - so Instant invisibility for the guy you True Resurrect... if he doesn't mind going nude to get the benefit; durable windows via Invisible Spell (Wall of Stone), invisible weapons and armor via Invisible Spell (Wall of Iron) and Invisible Spell (Fabricate), and so on), while under another DM, it's almost worthless (as all it gets rid of is a bunch of completely meaningless fluff that wasn't defined anyway).

Am I making sense?

[Keegan__D]

The problem is that it's not clearly defined. The relevant wording in Invisible Spell is "You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation."

So it depends on what's considered to be the "visual manifestation" of a given spell. Is the summon itself part of the visual manifestation of a Summoning spell? Is looking whole and healthy part of the visual manifestation of a Resurrection spell? This is not clearly defined anywhere.

So under one DM, the feat can be used by a high-level Cleric to give someone what amounts to non-magical constant invisibility (Invisible Spell(True Resurrection) when you don't have the corpse). Under another DM, this just means the living person appears with none of the normal non-mechanical movie effects that would normally accompany the spell (note: there are no non-mechanical movie effects for the vast majority of spells defined in the actual rules-as-written).

So under one DM, the feat has some ridiculously nice uses (anything the spell does is considered part of the 'visual manifestation' of the spell - so Instant invisibility for the guy you True Resurrect... if he doesn't mind going nude to get the benefit; durable windows via Invisible Spell (Wall of Stone), invisible weapons and armor via Invisible Spell (Wall of Iron) and Invisible Spell (Fabricate), and so on), while under another DM, it's almost worthless (as all it gets rid of is a bunch of completely meaningless fluff that wasn't defined anyway).

Am I making sense?

I follow. It's a very DM-specific feat, and queries here just make for a big pile of speculation and humor.

[DaedalusMkV]

I think the power of this lies in damage spells. If they don't know it's coming (because you're hidden), then they're flat-footed, and wouldn't get a reflex save.

Sadly, this is not how Reflex saves work by RAW. While being unconscious negates your ability to take Will saves (you're always Willing), nothing ever negates your ability to take Reflex or Fortitude saves. Flat-footed? Reflex save. Unconscious? Reflex Save. Paralyzed? Reflex save. Dex-drained to 0? Crappy Reflex Save. Yes, this can result in a Rogue entirely dodging a Fireball while paralyzed, restrained and in a coma. But still, by RAW it doesn't help at all. No matter how stupid the RAW is in this case...

[sreservoir]

somehow, I get the feeling it was intended to change only others' reactions to the spell, adjudicated by the DM, not to provide actual mechanical effects.

seriously, it's a +0 metamagic.

[Fax Celestis]

Sadly, this is not how Reflex saves work by RAW. While being unconscious negates your ability to take Will saves (you're always Willing), nothing ever negates your ability to take Reflex or Fortitude saves. Flat-footed? Reflex save. Unconscious? Reflex Save. Paralyzed? Reflex save. Dex-drained to 0? Crappy Reflex Save. Yes, this can result in a Rogue entirely dodging a Fireball while paralyzed, restrained and in a coma. But still, by RAW it doesn't help at all. No matter how stupid the RAW is in this case...

He's not dodging, he's reflexively modulating a field of entropy around him to align the random effects of the fireball to create a pocket of air inside the fire to shield himself.

Or he's just stepping into roguespace for a fraction of a second.

"Dodging" is for barbarians.

[Keegan__D]

Sadly, this is not how Reflex saves work by RAW. While being unconscious negates your ability to take Will saves (you're always Willing), nothing ever negates your ability to take Reflex or Fortitude saves. Flat-footed? Reflex save. Unconscious? Reflex Save. Paralyzed? Reflex save. Dex-drained to 0? Crappy Reflex Save. Yes, this can result in a Rogue entirely dodging a Fireball while paralyzed, restrained and in a coma. But still, by RAW it doesn't help at all. No matter how stupid the RAW is in this case...

Do you know a DM who would allow a sleeping reflex save?


He's not dodging, he's reflexively modulating a field of entropy around him to align the random effects of the fireball to create a pocket of air inside the fire to shield himself.

Or he's just stepping into roguespace for a fraction of a second.

"Dodging" is for barbarians.

Why wouldn't the rogue go to roguespace for attacks?

[The Glyphstone]

Why wouldn't the rogue go to roguespace for attacks?

Because you can't make a Reflex save against attacks. It's not for us to write the rules, only to give explanations for them.

[Fax Celestis]

Do you know a DM who would allow a sleeping reflex save?Yes. "Asleep" does not mean "immobile" or "dead". It is reflex, and your body reacts to things without you being conscious of them all the time.


Why wouldn't the rogue go to roguespace for attacks?
Because he needs a ring of blinking to do that.

[Jack_Simth]

While being unconscious negates your ability to take Will saves (you're always Willing)
Note that the section that says that is in the section for stuff that has the (harmless) tag on saves. It's not under saves in general, nor is it in the section on Will saves. Relevent section of the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow). It's very arguable that the particular segment in question *only* applies to spells with the Harmless descriptor (such as Cure Light Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm)) or that specifically call out "willing targets" (such as Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm))... although that's neither here nor there.

, nothing ever negates your ability to take Reflex or Fortitude saves. Flat-footed? Reflex save. Unconscious? Reflex Save. Paralyzed? Reflex save. Dex-drained to 0? Crappy Reflex Save. Yes, this can result in a Rogue entirely dodging a Fireball while paralyzed, restrained and in a coma. But still, by RAW it doesn't help at all. No matter how stupid the RAW is in this case...
This isn't fully true. The Snatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#snatch) feat denies someone held in a dragon's mouth a reflex save vs. the dragon's breath weapon. If Dexterity is a nonability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) for you, then you auto-fail reflex saves.

[DaedalusMkV]

Do you know a DM who would allow a sleeping reflex save?

Yes. All of my DMs allow Reflex Saves for anything short of total immobilization, though they usually ad-hoc a penalty for being asleep or otherwise limited in mobility (generally, either equivalent to being Entangled or Exhausted, depending on the circumstances).

Yes. "Asleep" does not mean "immobile" or "dead". It is reflex, and your body reacts to things without you being conscious of them all the time.


But Fax, neither immobility or death stops you from taking reflex saves! Hell, by RAW death doesn't do anything at all other than wiping out a Wizard or Cleric's prepared spells. Apparently, the designers thought it was "too obvious" and failed to write a proper description.

... Damn it, TOB. Now I have a mental image of a Warblade IHSing away death. This in addition to the Warblade who never bothers to sleep because he can just shout really loudly and swing his sword every time he starts to get tired. :smalltongue: "Get away, Reaper! My soul is not for you! IIIROON HEEEART SUUURGE!"

EDIT:

Note that the section that says that is in the section for stuff that has the (harmless) tag on saves. It's not under saves in general, nor is it in the section on Will saves.

This isn't fully true. The Snatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#snatch) feat denies someone held in a dragon's mouth a reflex save vs. the dragon's breath weapon. If Dexterity is a nonability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) for you, then you auto-fail reflex saves.
1: Admittedly, it's a grey area. Still, it's more about the fact that being asleep loses you the ability to take a lot of Will saves, albeit not all of them.
2: Terribly sorry for forgetting a single Feat that allows a creature to bypass the Reflex save for a single ability. I'll try to be more thourough in the future. As to nonabilities, IIRC there is not a single printed monster or template that allows you to have Dex as a nonability. Though admittedly, if there were such a thing outside of nonmagical inanimate objects that would be a loophole. Again, though, that's a little bit pedantic and does nothing to change my original point.

[Incanur]

For summon spells, wouldn't it be the portal that's invisible?

Probably not:


Effect: One summoned creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm)

[Jack_Simth]

2: Terribly sorry for forgetting a single Feat that allows a creature to bypass the Reflex save for a single ability. I'll try to be more thourough in the future. As to nonabilities, IIRC there is not a single printed monster or template that allows you to have Dex as a nonability. Though admittedly, if there were such a thing outside of nonmagical inanimate objects that would be a loophole. Again, though, that's a little bit pedantic and does nothing to change my original point.
There's a reason I said "not entirely true" rather than "False". And while not suitable as a player character, a Formian Queen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm) gets Dexterity as a nonability, and (as a non-templated outsider with 20 hit dice) is within range of Shapechange. Although why you would (other than maybe the 50 mile telepathy under certain circumstances) I've no idea.

I follow. It's a very DM-specific feat, and queries here just make for a big pile of speculation and humor.
More like how the person giving the answer reads the effect, but yes, pretty much.

[Sith_Happens]

He's not dodging, he's reflexively modulating a field of entropy around him to align the random effects of the fireball to create a pocket of air inside the fire to shield himself.

Or he's just stepping into roguespace for a fraction of a second.

"Dodging" is for barbarians.

Can I sig this if I have room?

[MesiDoomstalker]

He's not dodging, he's reflexively modulating a field of entropy around him to align the random effects of the fireball to create a pocket of air inside the fire to shield himself.

Or he's just stepping into roguespace for a fraction of a second.

"Dodging" is for barbarians.

Can I sig this if I have room?

I wanna sig this too.

[Psyren]

Hell, by RAW death doesn't do anything at all other than wiping out a Wizard or Cleric's prepared spells.

Death makes you unconscious and helpless by RAW. And since you can't be healed, you'll stay that way until rezzed.

Go ahead, ask me how :smalltongue:

[Jack_Simth]

Death makes you unconscious and helpless by RAW. And since you can't be healed, you'll stay that way until rezzed.

Go ahead, ask me how :smalltongue:Well now, that depends on whether you consider having no nonlethal damage to be having an amount of nonlethal damage of "0" or "-". If it's the former, then yes, you'll need to find some way of being immune to nonlethal damage (and feats like Diehard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#diehard) become completely useless). If it's the latter, then you can act while dead as long as nothing applies nonlethal damage to you.

[sreservoir]

Death makes you unconscious and helpless by RAW. And since you can't be healed, you'll stay that way until rezzed.

Go ahead, ask me how :smalltongue:

funnily enough, if you're dazed, confused, nauseated, or stunned, you can manifest an unconditional power even after you're dead, as long as you manage to maintain a psionic focus and enough power points. the wording is you can manifest an unconditional power when, rather than even if or despite or even if or something that calls it out as an exception -- no, it's just a new rule saying that you can do it.

... or actually maybe not, you might still need an action to do it. which makes the metapsi completely useless, because you don't have the action necessary under those conditions.

[Psyren]

While "-" is possible for ability scores, I see nothing that indicates it applies to every other numerical measure in the game. I don't see how that interpretation could even be possible.

[Fax Celestis]

Can I sig this if I have room?


I wanna sig this too.

Go for it. I like being sigged.

[DaedalusMkV]

Death makes you unconscious and helpless by RAW. And since you can't be healed, you'll stay that way until rezzed.

Go ahead, ask me how :smalltongue:

Step 1: Take the Die Hard feat, allowing you to act even while at negative hit points.
Step 2: Point out to your DM that being at negative HP is what stops you from acting, not death.
Step 3: All that dying does is cause you to become Staggered until rezzed.
Step 4: Get hit by DMG. Iron Heart Surge!

[Flickerdart]

Dead things are objects and not creatures, objects usually cannot act. Don't make this complicated.



"Dodging" is for barbarians.
Barbarians don't dodge. Barbarians take hits with their chest, because they traded dodging away for a bigger chest.

[Psyren]

Step 1: Take the Die Hard feat, allowing you to act even while at negative hit points.

Nice try; Diehard specifically allows you to act as though disabled while dying, not while dead. While it remains true that the penalties of "dead" are not defined, the Diehard feat no longer applies once you hit -10, and therefore the default rules kick back in (causing your nonlethal to exceed your HP and removing your ability to act.)

[Tyndmyr]

There's a reason I said "not entirely true" rather than "False". And while not suitable as a player character, a Formian Queen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm) gets Dexterity as a nonability, and (as a non-templated outsider with 20 hit dice) is within range of Shapechange. Although why you would (other than maybe the 50 mile telepathy under certain circumstances) I've no idea.

Actually, that with mindsight would be pretty fantastic.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Actually, that with mindsight would be pretty fantastic.

Also makes you an excellent comander like Hermes in one of the Futurama movies. The one with the Scammers (can't remember the name). Instant communication and perception of a large area. Of course your almost completly ineffectual outside of being a comander but it would be an interesting way to lead large combat scenarios.

[JaronK]

She's also got at will divination, which is really cool. It would be great to dominate one of these (Necrotic Tumor, perhaps?) but she's not easy to get (Greater Planar Binding with the feat that boosts caps on spells, perhaps?).

JaronK

[Jack_Simth]

Also makes you an excellent comander like Hermes in one of the Futurama movies. The one with the Scammers (can't remember the name). Instant communication and perception of a large area. Of course your almost completly ineffectual outside of being a comander but it would be an interesting way to lead large combat scenarios.
Note that, as you're doing this via Shapechange, you're at least a Wizard-17 / Druid-17 / Cleric-17 / Sorcerer-18 (although there's a few ways to get it earlier).

Note that, as you're doing this via Shapechange, you can change forms as a free action to something a bit more combat-appropriate if you're directly threatened by something that's going on.