Using Fiery Burst = an attack?

[sokbeest]

Invisibility states: "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."

From the look of it, RAW, using Fiery Burst would not trigger this. Am I missing something?

[Malroth]

If this ruling works out in your favor it might bump warlocks up a tier because they'd be able to go all day without breaking their 24 hour duration at will invisibility

[Andezzar]

If this ruling works out in your favor it might bump warlocks up a tier because they'd be able to go all day without breaking their 24 hour duration at will invisibilityI don't think that would upgrade them to a better tier, but it is certainly nice to know.

[Elxir_Breauer]

Attack is actually fairly well defined within the rules, as are the actions which break Invisibility from what I remember. You may want to look up the rules for Illusions, and more specifically Invisibility again. Any action which targets an opponent or includes one in its area, except for harmless effects, will break Invisibility. Though the SRD rule on it seems to be slightly more vague than I remember, it still calls out any direct attack as breaking the Invisibility, YMMV on how your DM rules it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm for your convenience.

[Necroticplague]

Invisibility states: "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."

From the look of it, RAW, using Fiery Burst would not trigger this. Am I missing something?

Nope, very technically, you're correct. There are two definitions of an attack in dnd: something that uses an attack roll, or the specific enumerations under invisibility. However, Invisibility specifies "spells that target a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe". Fiery Burst, being a Supernatural Ability, doesn't fall within this clause. And lacking an attack roll, it doesn't fall under the normal definition of an attack, either.

[BWR]

And the RAI seems pretty clear to me. Any player trying to get away with this would be smacked by me or any other GM I know.

[gadren]

From the SRD:

Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. 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 actually just made a thread about this like less than a week ago.

[rrwoods]

... Technically, it sounds like powers and maneuvers aren't covered either. Most maneuvers have you make an attack, but there's that Desert Wind one that just does 100 damage to everything in the area

[Jormengand]

From the SRD:


I actually just made a thread about this like less than a week ago.

Weirdly, this means that the truenamer utterance temporal twist allows your friend to fire off an epic spell as a free action, even if the cast time would normally be days.

But yes, fiery burst is an attack, as are SLAs (which "Work just like spells" anyway) and maneuvers.

[StreamOfTheSky]

And the RAI seems pretty clear to me. Any player trying to get away with this would be smacked by me or any other GM I know.

Agreed. But to a lot of people here, strict nonsensical RAW is all that matters. I wonder if I'll ever have the pleasure/horror of seeing one of their mythical games where characters struck down dead have their lifeless corpses begin running around because the strict, limited wording of Dead doesn't say they can't.

[Necroticplague]

Agreed. But to a lot of people here, strict nonsensical RAW is all that matters. I wonder if I'll ever have the pleasure/horror of seeing one of their mythical games where characters struck down dead have their lifeless corpses begin running around because the strict, limited wording of Dead doesn't say they can't.

No, you won't, because the rules for nonlethal damage would make you unconcious when you're dead, by prodigal coincedence.

[rrwoods]

Agreed. But to a lot of people here, strict nonsensical RAW is all that matters. I wonder if I'll ever have the pleasure/horror of seeing one of their mythical games where characters struck down dead have their lifeless corpses begin running around because the strict, limited wording of Dead doesn't say they can't.

*eyeroll*

I don't think anyone has claimed that a serious game uses strict RAW, ever. That doesn't make discussing RAW useless -- in fact, I'd argue the opposite. How can you agree on the rules at your table, which must necessarily be based on the rules as written, if you don't know what you're starting with?

Yes, any sane DM would (in the absence of the "Attacks" section of the SRD) houserule Fiery Burst to break invisibility. But if you don't know you need to, how can you?

Also there's the fun some people have of discussing silly RAW consequences just for the sake of it -- I don't think those people actually expect those silly consequences to fly in a game, either.

[Nifft]

Invisibility specifies "spells that target a foe or whose area of effect includes a foe". Fiery Burst, being a Supernatural Ability, doesn't fall within this clause.

"... and that's why invisible dragons took over the world."

[digiman619]

Weirdly, this means that the truenamer utterance temporal twist allows your friend to fire off an epic spell as a free action, even if the cast time would normally be days.

If he's truly your friend, he wouldn't have made you play truenamer. :smalltongue:

[Andezzar]

No, you won't, because the rules for nonlethal damage would make you unconcious when you're dead, by prodigal coincedence.The problem is not death by hit point damage but death by death effect or other fiat.

[zergling.exe]

The problem is not death by hit point damage but death by death effect or other fiat.

Anything that kills you puts you at -10 hp. In the end, everything that kills you is done by hit point damage.

[Andezzar]

Ah, I forgot about that part. So how can dead characters act?

[Jormengand]

If he's truly your friend, he wouldn't have made you play truenamer. :smalltongue:

Well no, you'd just have played one anyway for the level 2 utterance that allows you to quicken epic spells, the one that allows you to teleport as a free action during your movement for its duration and the one that allows you to shoot people through walls, among others. :smalltongue:

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Ah, I forgot about that part. So how can dead characters act?

They can't. It's a bad joke that people keep taking kind of seriously for some reason.

[The Grue]

Ah, I forgot about that part. So how can dead characters act?

Ironheart Surge.

[Andezzar]

Ironheart Surge.Iron heart surge requires a standard action, maneuvers in general require the ability for movement. Neither is allowed while unconscious.

[Psyren]

Invisibility states: "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."

From the look of it, RAW, using Fiery Burst would not trigger this. Am I missing something?

1) The rule you've cited is inclusive, not exclusive. The fact that it "includes any spell" does not mean that things that are not spells are exlcuded.

2) Gadren's cite is much more relevant to me. Fiery Burst is certainly an "offensive combat action." Therefore it's an attack, full stop.

[The Grue]

Iron heart surge requires a standard action, maneuvers in general require the ability for movement. Neither is allowed while unconscious.

What if you Ironheart Surge the restrictions on actions?

[zergling.exe]

Iron heart surge requires a standard action, maneuvers in general require the ability for movement. Neither is allowed while unconscious.

There are rules for dying (-1 to -9 hp) where you are explicitly unconscious, and rules for dead (-10 or less) that do not say anything about being unconsious. So people argue that because dead doesn't explicitly say that you are unconscious, the specific of dead not mentioning unconsiousness beats the general if you have more nonlethal than hit points.

Or at least that's what the last argument I saw come up here.

[Andezzar]

There are rules for dying (-1 to -9 hp) where you are explicitly unconscious, and rules for dead (-10 or less) that do not say anything about being unconsious. So people argue that because dead doesn't explicitly say that you are unconscious, the specific of dead not mentioning unconsiousness beats the general if you have more nonlethal than hit points.

Or at least that's what the last argument I saw come up here.You always have accumulated at least 0 nonlethal damage. If your hit point total is -10 your nonlethal damage exceeds your hit point total making you unconscious. There is no contradiction and so no reason for a specific rule to beat a general one.

[Deophaun]

So people argue... the specific of dead not mentioning unconsiousness
Which is the point the argument ceases to be and becomes the basis for a Monty Python sketch.

[digiman619]

Which is the point the argument ceases to be and becomes the basis for a Monty Python sketch. "I'm only mostly dead!"

[zergling.exe]

You always have accumulated at least 0 nonlethal damage. If your hit point total is -10 your nonlethal damage exceeds your hit point total making you unconscious. There is no contradiction and so no reason for a specific rule to beat a general one.

Yes, but the argument was that because dying mentions unconsciousness and dead doesn't, they are more specific rules on unconsciousness.

[Andezzar]

Not repeating a general rule does not remove that rule and neither does the repetition in a different place.

[Troacctid]

Yes, but the argument was that because dying mentions unconsciousness and dead doesn't, they are more specific rules on unconsciousness.

I don't see where dead contradicts the rule on unconsciousness. It would need to say something like "You may act while dead."

[zergling.exe]

Not repeating a general rule does not remove that rule and neither does the repetition in a different place.


I don't see where dead contradicts the rule on unconsciousness. It would need to say something like "You may act while dead."

That's what was trying to be explained to the people advocating that reading in the thread. :smallsigh:

[Jack_Simth]

Invisibility states: "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."

From the look of it, RAW, using Fiery Burst would not trigger this. Am I missing something?

The realization that a dragon's breath weapon is also a supernatural ability, and a lot of them come with 2nd level spells?

[digiman619]

Well no, you'd just have played one anyway for the level 2 utterance that allows you to quicken epic spells, the one that allows you to teleport as a free action during your movement for its duration and the one that allows you to shoot people through walls, among others. :smalltongue: Yeah, except for the fact for your planned truenamer letting a friend cast an epic spell, you need to make a (at mimimum) DC 57 (assuming that the epic friend is level 21, the minimum level needed to cast an epic spell) truespeak check... when you have maybe 5 ranks in the skill.

[Coidzor]

Sounds like another one for the dysfunctional rules compendium, if it's not already documented, then.

[sokbeest]

I actually just made a thread about this like less than a week ago.

Dang, I looked high and low before posting, but I didn't see it: What counts as an "attack"? More complicated than we may think? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483852). Thanks. The SRD passage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks) about "offensive combat actions" does seem to apply to Fiery Burst.



And the RAI seems pretty clear to me. Any player trying to get away with this would be smacked by me or any other GM I know.

The idea is not suggested by a player, it's suggested by the GM, me, and I don't think it would be a big deal to allow this, honestly. Pleased to meet you.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, except for the fact for your planned truenamer letting a friend cast an epic spell, you need to make a (at mimimum) DC 57 (assuming that the epic friend is level 21, the minimum level needed to cast an epic spell) truespeak check... when you have maybe 5 ranks in the skill.

If you can use 2nd level utterances then you'd better have more than 5 ranks...

(Also, seriously, hitting a DC 57 isn't particularly hard if your epic buddy (who for some reason is tagging about a 4th-level truenamer) is happy to blow one of his third-level slots on Guidance of the Avatar and buy you a Greater Amulet of the Silver Tongue, and other fun stuff like that.)



Anyway, getting back to the point: yes it's an attack, yes it breaks invisibility, have fun.

[Gallowglass]

Dang, I looked high and low before posting, but I didn't see it: What counts as an "attack"? More complicated than we may think? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483852). Thanks. The SRD passage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#attacks) about "offensive combat actions" does seem to apply to Fiery Burst.




The idea is not suggested by a player, it's suggested by the GM, me, and I don't think it would be a big deal to allow this, honestly. Pleased to meet you.


So you, as a DM, do not think letting the players access to an area-of-effect damage causing ability that allows them to preserve normal (non greater) invisibility while firebombing the enemy? is problematic?

Good luck with that.

[Andezzar]

It actually isn't a problem, because Invisibility becomes available at the same time as See Invisibility and Glitterdust. Faerie Fire has been available for two levels to help the muggles.

[Necroticplague]

So you, as a DM, do not think letting the players access to an area-of-effect damage causing ability that allows them to preserve normal (non greater) invisibility while firebombing the enemy? is problematic?

Good luck with that.

I don't. The damage is sub-par, and DnD isn't an MMO where people will just stand about taking hits if they can't see you. See Invisible, Glitterdust, Faerie Fire, throwing bags of flour or using AoEs in response, blind-fight, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense (possibly combined with blind-fight) can all counter this easily. Heck, even Scent, crude as it is, would let them gradually home in on your location. And if you don't stand in one place while they look, that's Move Silently vs. Listen that can give you away. And even without it, Spot checks can still be made to see you.

[Psyren]

I for one do disagree with it. If I wanted Greater Invisibility to be a second level spell I would houserule it that way. Hell, it goes even further than GI - if you rule these abilities are not attacks, not only does their invisibility stay up, but you also prevent them from taking the -20 penalty to Hide while attacking.

To the folks saying Glitterdust, Faerie Fire and even bags of flour exist - you still have to aim those countermeasuers in the right spot. If the foe in question is using SLAs or Su abilities (i.e. silent and still), your chance of correctly telling where they originate from and not wasting your action are greatly lessened. See Invisibility does still work, but has a higher opportunity cost (unlike the first two, it's completely useless if you're not facing invisible foes) and also more counterplay (it can't pierce fog or darkness, so a clever invisible character can lead you to question whether you're positioned correctly - or keep you from pinpointing them beyond being *somewhere* in a given 20ft. or greater spread.) This can cause you to waste your abilities even more triangulating them - and the entire time of course, they are free to pelt you with impunity.

If you're fine with all that, great - houserule away. For myself, I'm glad that attacks are defined so broadly.

[Gallowglass]

I don't. The damage is sub-par, and DnD isn't an MMO where people will just stand about taking hits if they can't see you. See Invisible, Glitterdust, Faerie Fire, throwing bags of flour or using AoEs in response, blind-fight, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense (possibly combined with blind-fight) can all counter this easily. Heck, even Scent, crude as it is, would let them gradually home in on your location. And if you don't stand in one place while they look, that's Move Silently vs. Listen that can give you away. And even without it, Spot checks can still be made to see you.

Okay, I'll bite.

fiery burst hits a 5' square with a range of 30' from the caster. So the caster has 88 squares he can target from where-ever he is standing.

therefore, inversely, if you are hit by a fiery burst, then the caster can be in any one of 88 squares around you. (excluding any range enhancing shenanigans or three dimensional tactics using levitate, fly or other abilities.)

Now this is even better than greater invisibility, because they don't appear when they hit you, even momentarily, so you have no clue where they are each time you are hit. So readying an action is useless because they do not get revealed when hitting you.

A bag of flour lets you hit one square. So you have a 1/88 chance of hitting the right square. 1.13% chance. Hope you brought a lot.

glitterdust is a 10' radius burst, so you can target 12 squares with that. Faerie Fire is a 5' radius burst so you can target 4 squares with that. So you have a 13.6% and 4.5% chance of hitting the caster with those. Better start spamming those with readied actions or hoping he isn't casting, then moving.

blind-fight is useless because they are not next to you. So if you happen to shoot at arrow at the right square (1.13% change) then they don't get the concealment miss chance.

spot lets you know "there is an invisible creature near you" but I'm unfamiliar with actually pinpointing them in 3.5 rules.

permissively, listen may let you pinpoint a square, but then you have to deal with a concealment miss chance. And you'll have to keep making difficult skill checks each round while the invisible mage is moving around. At least until you fail the first time and the wizard stops moving and just spams you from there.

Area of effects would probably help, but unless you are centering them on yourself (fireball my feet!), you have about a 25% chance of getting the mage each time. He could be anywhere around you after all, and assuming you don't want to hit yourself, you can hit about 1/4 of the squares he -could- be in with each spell. Granted you are expending spell slots and he isn't while playing this cat and mouse game.

blindsense has a 30' range, so as long as they don't fire and move, this should work.

Blindsight as long as its a 30' radius version should likewise work (but not the 5' version)

See invisibility of course works. I almost never see a caster take this as a spell, but most have it on a wand or something, so if they do, then they are good to go.

So the wizard with spontaneous divination, the guy who overspends on situational wands, and the druid who took an odd feat are going to be good to go. That doesn't strike me as a broad spectrum of the possible PCs. I think you are overstating the ease with which the average enemy mob can deal with this.

Big surprise, I'm sure, that wizards and druids are the best at dealing with this problem... you know... like every problem.

Either way, if this was a player who was just spamming this strategy on every encounter, they'll probably be able to destroy 80% of encounters through attrition fire. At least until the DM starts sending nothing but fire-resistant, blind-sighted enemies against you. It seems like everybody loves meta-game DMing to overcome problems.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, assuming that combat takes place in perfectly flat planes with each space equally as likely to have an enemy does make things much harder. Fortunately, most places I've known don't meet this description.

[Gallowglass]

True. Terrain and other such things would work to the fiery burster's overwhelming advantage.

[Necroticplague]

True. Terrain and other such things would work to the fiery burster's overwhelming advantage.

Hallways and rooms can sharply limit the amount of spaces you have to search through, as can the relatively reasonable assumption of it coming from a different direction that the one most of the visible people are in. Between the two of those, you can get a pretty good idea of where to drop AoEs.

[Gallowglass]

Suffice it to say, there are just as many "flat featureless plain" encounters are their are "cramped 30' room or 10'x30' hallway" encounters." The fiery burster as the invisible "stalker" in this scenario is far more likely to get to pick the terrain and location of the encounter. And all factors being EQUAL, I'm going to give tactical advantage to the invisible guy who can full move while immolating any 5' square within a 30' radius regardless of line of effect, rather than the person spamming giltterdust based on difficult listening checks or strategy guessing.

Yes, all things not being EQUAL, there are certainly scenarios where the advantage lessens, but the point is that this represents an unfair advantage that would require the DM to be heavyhanded and meta-planning to deal with on an ongoing bases. Suddenly EVERY encounter needs to be a cramped 30' room or 10'x30' hallway.

*shrug* I'm checking out because you are obviously going to cling tenaciously to your argument no matter how effectively it gets refuted.

[BWR]

The idea is not suggested by a player, it's suggested by the GM, me, and I don't think it would be a big deal to allow this, honestly. Pleased to meet you.

I would also argue against this ruling with any DM who would attempt to OK this, then smack them if persisted, then proceed to horribly abuse it to prove my point.

[Jack_Simth]

If you can use 2nd level utterances then you'd better have more than 5 ranks...

(Also, seriously, hitting a DC 57 isn't particularly hard if your epic buddy (who for some reason is tagging about a 4th-level truenamer) is happy to blow one of his third-level slots on Guidance of the Avatar and buy you a Greater Amulet of the Silver Tongue, and other fun stuff like that.)



Anyway, getting back to the point: yes it's an attack, yes it breaks invisibility, have fun.
... if the 4th level Truenamer tagalong lets the Epic wizard take the 100-day casting time mitigation on development of Epic spells, and then cast it as a free action, that's a worthwhile use of a 4th level follower at 21st level (seriously, it's 200 points of mitigatin - more than that, due to the minute additions as well - for a 4th level follower; compare to having a Wizard-4 follower donate a spell slot to ritual magic: 3 points of mitigation).

[rrwoods]

I would also argue against this ruling with any DM who would attempt to OK this, then smack them if persisted, then proceed to horribly abuse it to prove my point.

Really? Play the ****ing game.

I don't agree with the ruling, since the (poorly organized) rules, to me, say that Fiery Burst does count as an attack. But seriously; if the DM is saying this works, it works, and I'll be reevaluating my optimization level in accordance with what that suggests.

"Proving a point" at a real table is childish.

[Psyren]

Really? Play the ****ing game.

I don't agree with the ruling, since the (poorly organized) rules, to me, say that Fiery Burst does count as an attack. But seriously; if the DM is saying this works, it works, and I'll be reevaluating my optimization level in accordance with what that suggests.

"Proving a point" at a real table is childish.

You're right, I wouldn't try to "prove a point" with this or otherwise be vindictive about it, that behavior is unnecessary. However, if the GM in question allowed this asinine ruling apply to the monsters, and let them zap the party with impunity without needing Greater Invisibility or even taking a hide penalty while firing off their attacks, you can better believe I'd be standing up for myself to convince him of his gross mishandling of the rules - not sucking up a bad judgment call just to "play the ****ing game." And if that didn't work, my feet and I would happily find another table to sit at.

[rrwoods]

You're right, I wouldn't try to "prove a point" with this or otherwise be vindictive about it, that behavior is unnecessary. However, if the GM in question allowed this asinine ruling apply to the monsters, and let them zap the party with impunity without needing Greater Invisibility or even taking a hide penalty while firing off their attacks, you can better believe I'd be standing up for myself to convince him of his gross mishandling of the rules - not sucking up a bad judgment call just to "play the ****ing game." And if that didn't work, my feet and I would happily find another table to sit at.
Totally reasonable, but I'm not referring to what you're talking about here. I apologize if I somehow communicated that standing up to DM tactics based on shaky rulings was not appropriate.

What I'm talking about is behavior that essentially amounts to "oh, you don't realize how broken what you're allowing us to do is, so let me show you and in the process completely derail the game we were all having fun with before any of this started." That crap gets on my nerves.

I think you and I have the same reasonable goal: Fun for everyone at the table. The DM abusing shaky rules to mob the players isn't fun for the players; a player deliberately abusing an exceptionally permissive ruling isn't fun for anyone that isn't him.

[Jormengand]

... if the 4th level Truenamer tagalong lets the Epic wizard take the 100-day casting time mitigation on development of Epic spells, and then cast it as a free action, that's a worthwhile use of a 4th level follower at 21st level (seriously, it's 200 points of mitigatin - more than that, due to the minute additions as well - for a 4th level follower; compare to having a Wizard-4 follower donate a spell slot to ritual magic: 3 points of mitigation).

Yeah, but at the same time 4th-level characters are annoying to keep about with you when you're having an epic conflict. Plus, Leadership doesn't necessarily mean your followers are happy to tag about with you and utter at you while probably getting 10th-level spell slots flung at them with reckless abandon by your enemies.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah, but at the same time 4th-level characters are annoying to keep about with you when you're having an epic conflict. Plus, Leadership doesn't necessarily mean your followers are happy to tag about with you and utter at you while probably getting 10th-level spell slots flung at them with reckless abandon by your enemies.... so you make a simulacrum of an 8th level Truenamer follower.

[Jormengand]

... so you make a simulacrum of an 8th level Truenamer follower.

True, true. (Namer, namer, yes, I know).