persistent blade and invisibility

[Trilby]

Playground, I'm unsure.

Would you rule Persistent Blade (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/persistent-blade--4623/) to break Invisibility? And why?
My interpretation is that it is a 'summoned' dagger of force which attacks on its own at your command, so it doesn't break invisibility, then again, it's not a Conjuration(Summoning) spell.

Your interpretations, please?

[hemming]

I would rule it as a direct attack - I feel like allowing this would open the door for magic missile being equated to summoning missiles of force or other such shenanigans. But it is a tricky one

[MrNobody]

I think it could be ruled this way: when you summon the blade, you remain invisible. The act of calling the blade is not so different from calling an elemental, an animal & so on. On this topic, the description of "invisibility" states:


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.

But i see a little difference here, between a summoned monster and the persistent blade.
The monster is a creature: it obeys to you as its master but has its own will. For the purpose of invisibility spell, the hostile intention is in the monster's mind, not in yours.
Instead, the blade has no will and, as stated by the spell,


attacks any target within its range, as you desire, starting in the round when you cast the spell.

So, summoning the blade leaves you invisible, but in the moment in which you use it for dealing damage, you come perfectly visible.

[Trilby]

Great response so far, peeps, thanks!

@hemming: I'd feel that those shenanigans you refer to are still illegal with my proposed ruling, as this spell specifically states that the blade attacks, whereas MM references the caster.

@MrNobody: interesting point.

[Diarmuid]

The spell's listed "Effect" is "One dagger made of force". There is no AoE for anyone to be caught in.

Casting the spell summons the blade. The act of casting the spell does not in an of itself make attack rolls or force saves.

I see no reason why casting this spell would break invisibility.

[Fitz10019]

The spell's listed "Effect" is "One dagger made of force". There is no AoE for anyone to be caught in.

Casting the spell summons the blade. The act of casting the spell does not in an of itself make attack rolls or force saves.

I see no reason why casting this spell would break invisibility.

The discussion is already past the point of casting. Do you think directing the spell effect against a target would break invisibility?

[Diarmuid]

Does directing a summoned creature to attack a target break invisibility?

[hemming]

Does directing a summoned creature to attack a target break invisibility?

I'm a little caught up in the RAW vs. RAI issue with this - it is an evocation spell, even though the spell effect is "one dagger made of force" the spell doesn't reference this as "summoning a dagger"

You fling a dagger of force at a target with your magic as an evocation spell - it is difficult for me to see the difference between this (outside of the multiple rounds) and bringing a fireball into being with magic and directing it at a target

[Diarmuid]

It's the difference between those that matter, but the wording of what breakd invisibility:



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.


Summons, and Persistent Blade neither target a foe or have an area of effect that includes a foe.

[hemming]

Summons, and Persistent Blade neither target a foe or have an area of effect that includes a foe

I see where you are coming from but my bone of contention is that once you use the spell to attack a foe, you are targeting the foe directly with an evocation spell (dagger of force = to missile of force) rather than indirectly with a summoned creature

It is essentially a delayed magic missile (replace missile w/ dagger), rather than an independent entity from the caster (as a summoned creature)

I think we will need to agree to disagree

Edit: Comparing "A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target"

with "The blade flies at a speed of 40 feet (perfect) and attacks any target within its range, as you desire, starting in the round when you cast the spell"

with "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. "

[Fitz10019]

One perhaps noteworthy difference is that, once a summoned creature appears, it will attack someone without further instructions. It will choose a target/victim. You can direct it if you can communicate with it, but it won't wait for that. In contrast, this evocation blade responds to your targetting choice.

That said, while I see Hem's point of view, the text of the spell repeatedly and consistently uses the phrase "the blade attacks... it attacks..."

In contrast to Magic Missile, which has a Target, Persistent Blade does not. It only has an Effect. So, I disagree that a ruling on Persistent Blade is a slippery slope to Magic Missile.

[hemming]

In contrast to Magic Missile, which has a Target, Persistent Blade does not. It only has an Effect. So, I disagree that a ruling on Persistent Blade is a slippery slope to Magic Missile.

These are some good points - I retract my equating the two

[TmasterT]

how about being invisible and using a flaming sphere?, using a move action to drive it across a bunch of squares isn't really a directed attack.

[NoACWarrior]

While we all agree that evocating said dagger wouldn't negate invisibility, we are arguing about the physical origin of attacks.

I personally think the issue stems from who's attack roll / save DC is used.

We mostly agree that a summon monster is exempt from negating invisibility, and that using a weapon or direct targeted / aoe spell would negate invisibility. The difference between these two are who's attack roll / save DC is used.

When cutting a rope bridge, the save DC is based on a physical instability of the bridge, not stemming from the invisible playing doing the cutting. Likewise a summoned monster's generated attacks or effects are based directly on that monster's attack rolls and save DCs. So long as the evocated weapon or item isn't an attack from the invisible caster (aka the caster rolling an attack roll for the evocated weapon, or relying on the save DC from the invisible caster) then there's no likely chance that the invisible caster would have invisibility negated.

The trick with the above stated item is wheter the newly evocated weapon's attack is generated directly from the invisible caster, or if the attack of said weapon emulates the caster's BAB, CL, and stats.

[hemming]

This section of the SRD http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm

seems relevant here:

"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. "

I think for this issue it is the spell itself doing the harm - same goes for the flaming sphere


Edit:

I also find that although Persistent Blade does not have a Target - it does reference only doing damage to a target: "Each round after the first, you can use a standard action to switch the blade to a new target; otherwise, it continues to attack the same target." - so seems consistent with any "spell targeting foe" component of invisibility spell description

[Trilby]

"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. "


The first section you quoted deals with attacks that aren't obviously damaging (like charm person). The question I asked can be reduced to "does persistent blade fall within the category of 'other allies' as mentioned in the quote above".

What's interesting is that the spell's effect uses it's own (derived from the caster's) attack roll, but the caster's spell resistance to test if the dagger affects an opponent at all. Murky waters indeed.

[hemming]

The first section you quoted deals with attacks that aren't obviously damaging (like charm person). The question I asked can be reduced to "does persistent blade fall within the category of 'other allies' as mentioned in the quote above"..

For me, the second half of the sentence is more pertinent as it lends description to what does not constitute a summoned creature or ally - when the spell itself is dealing the damage. A summoned monster exists independently of the characters casting and is merely brought to the current location - the dagger of force does not exist without the characters casting bringing it into being.

[Diarmuid]

But by that logic, a wall of fire cast in open space, that someone decided to walk into would break your invisibility.

[hemming]

But by that logic, a wall of fire cast in open space, that someone decided to walk into would break your invisibility.

It also needs to fulfil the requirement of targeting an enemy

A summoned creature or ally is communicated with - persistent dagger is directed by the caster

Edit: still assuming this as the point that the caster directs the spell to target to damage an enemy (the attack that breaks invisibility) - not casting the spell