Why Does Attacking End Invisibility?

[Gale]

I've always wondered why attacking while under the effects of the Invisibility spell caused it to immediately end. I understand it occurs primarily for balancing reasons. But is there a canonical explanation for why this happens? It seems rather bizarre that you can do basically everything else while invisible without any consequence except for this one thing.

[emulord]

I always saw lesser invisibility as a "notice me not" field, with greater invisibility making you actually invisible

[VoxRationis]

In one of my settings, most spells are learned from rote, having been passed down from a time of greater scientific learning, and the concepts behind them aren't really understood. Mages learn how to tweak spells to greater efficiency, or to improve their ability to concentrate, but they could never recapitulate the old spells on their own. A lot of spells are thought to have restrictions that aren't strictly necessary to function, but no one* knows how to remove them. It's possible they were made like that for safety or legal reasons now irrelevant.


*Strictly speaking, some people do know how, but they don't particularly wish to share this information.

[Seppo87]

Not that I know. Maybe the wizard who invented the spell was a pacifist.

[SethoMarkus]

I always saw lesser invisibility as a "notice me not" field, with greater invisibility making you actually invisible

I believe it is something along these lines. Lesser Invisibility is just an illusion over tpur self to make you appear invisible, like reacrive camouflage. It reflects light around you, but you are still, strictly speaking, "visible". As such, interacting with others causes them to see through that illusion. Greater Invisibilty actually makes you invisible. You disappear from the visual light spectrum because magic. Sort of like that new super dark black that absorbs something like 99.99% of light?

[Fizban]

Gotta take it a bit further for it to make sense that the spell ends rather than people just ignore it: Invisibility is constantly bending light and illusioning around you, non-hostile actions are easier to bend since they're usually less sudden and not directly pointed at someone. When you take a hostile action the spell still tries to cloak you, but 2nd level invisibility can't handle the stress and collapses, ending the spell entirely.

[kinem]

Though it never made much sense, this is one case in which 'because it's magic' seems to apply. Just as bat guano (which is slightly related to fire as it can be an ingredient for gunpowder) somehow helps to produce a fireball, attacking someone (which is slightly related to revealing yourself) somehow tends to disrupt an invisibility spell.

[Necromancy]

It's a non-concentration low level illusion that doesn't allow disbelieve saves. It balances out by being easily dispelled.

Envision the spell being a light bending soap bubble, but instead of popping it with your finger, you pop it with disbelief

[Kurald Galain]

But is there a canonical explanation for why this happens? It seems rather bizarre that you can do basically everything else while invisible without any consequence except for this one thing.
No, there's not; this is one of the oldest examples of a disassociated mechanic.


I always saw lesser invisibility as a "notice me not" field, with greater invisibility making you actually invisible
That would be a great explanation (and it's e.g. how Obfuscate works in VtM) but it's not consistent with the mechanics.

[Florian]

Puh, weltering heat, I´m melting...

As has been mentioned before, it´s basically an illusion of "I´m not here!". That illusion simply breaks down when you do anything that is contrary to that.

[digiman619]

Meta-wise? Because helping sneaking is fine effect for 3rd level parties. Invisible snipers and whatnot is past most parties' abilities to combat until much later.
Flavor-wise? It's a S.E.P field.

[trikkydik]

Lesser invisibility is not meant as a means to bolster combat power. It has to do with the way the enemies perceive the spell. lesser invisible work as if, "Invisible if they don't actually know I'm here."
Attacking the enemy completely alerts the enemy of the attackers whereabouts. Attacking unattended, inanimate objects does NOT end the spell.

Greater invisibility is simply a more powerful, more perfected, version of invisibility. And that's why it doesn't matter if the enemy knows where you are, if they don't have blind fight or clairvoyant powers, they can not effectively fight you.

Hope that helps

[IAmA Wizard AMA]

It's not a "notice-me-not" field. It actually changes your appearance. That's why it's in the glamer subschool.

The reason why taking aggressive actions ends the spell is because the limitation on the subject's actions acts as a mitigating factor that makes the spell take less energy to cast. I haven't done a ton of spell research myself, but I do know that figuring out the right mitigating factors is a big part of it.

As an aside, I was pretty excited to learn this spell at first, but it's been an underperformer. It turns out that, in real life, most of the things you would want invisibility for tend to be pretty immoral. Plus, it's a real hassle trying to get hold of eyelashes encased in gum arabic—I can't exactly buy them at Walmart.

[Sapreaver]

I believe it is something along these lines. Lesser Invisibility is just an illusion over tpur self to make you appear invisible, like reacrive camouflage. It reflects light around you, but you are still, strictly speaking, "visible". As such, interacting with others causes them to see through that illusion. Greater Invisibilty actually makes you invisible. You disappear from the visual light spectrum because magic. Sort of like that new super dark black that absorbs something like 99.99% of light?

Vanta black is the black you refer too.

[Andezzar]

Lesser invisibility is not meant as a means to bolster combat power. It has to do with the way the enemies perceive the spell. lesser invisible work as if, "Invisible if they don't actually know I'm here." Everything you don't know that is there is undetected, not just invisible. You do not need a spell for that.


Attacking the enemy completely alerts the enemy of the attackers whereabouts. Attacking unattended, inanimate objects does NOT end the spell.Interestingly not only unattended objects can be attacked without breaking the spell. So go around sunder every enemy's weapon.

[Kurald Galain]

To have the fluff make sense, you could change Invisibility to having sudden motion break it (or to give all observers a disbelieve check at +20), because it's a low-level spell that can't cope with sudden movement. Then note that you cannot attack without making sudden movement; even if you're just firing a crossbow, the arrow will make sudden movement. Of course, this means that e.g. running and jumping may also break the spell.

[Andezzar]

So what is sudden motion? Is it moving more than your speed? Is it taking a 5 ft step in response to an AoO? Is it changing direction during your move?

[Kurald Galain]

So what is sudden motion? Is it moving more than your speed? Is it taking a 5 ft step in response to an AoO? Is it changing direction during your move?

Obviously, there will be a few of corner cases where the DM has to make a judgment; that is already the case with the current wording, as "attack" isn't unambiguously defined. Also obviously, taking an ordinary move action shouldn't break invis.

[Âmesang]

Would one be able to catch a foe flat-footed with invisibility for a single sneak attack? :smallconfused:

[Necroticplague]

Would one be able to catch a foe flat-footed with invisibility for a single sneak attack? :smallconfused:

Assuming they don't have blind-fight, blindsight, see invisible, uncanny dodge, or similar, yes. The invisibility isn't broken until after the attack, so you can get one hit in.

[Bohandas]

I always saw lesser invisibility as a "notice me not" field, with greater invisibility making you actually invisible

But then it would be a mind-affecting ability like Cloud Mind

[ericgrau]

Yeah it seems more for mechanical reason. I don't see a fluff explanation. But we can make one up.

As said White Wolf explains obfuscate as being not noticed, so if you interact with someone too strongly that start noticing you. Invisibility could be similar. Instead it really is invisibility but when you act too strongly you shatter the illusion. Just like if you touch or disbelieve an image it automatically becomes semi-transparent. And indirect uses of silent image where no one would examine it (an image off to the side where the person isn't thinking of going, etc.) likewise don't allow a save. I guess you could call it illusory invisibility instead of real invisibility.

Under this explanation the DM might rule that anything too overt against a creature might also shatter the invisibility. Though it's hard to find such actions that aren't attacks, even if they may be 0 damage attacks like splashing the target with paint.

Likewise the spell suggests many creative indirect attacks. It seems like if any part managed enough coordination to synchronize stealth you could cause some major low level trouble attacking indirectly with invisibility. Plus it has a longer duration than greater invisibility.

[Segev]

As others have said, the short answer really is game balance. Invisibility is a powerful advantage in the combat engine, too big an advantage for a 2nd level spell. It is not too big an advantage for a 2nd level spell when used outside of combat, however. So the balance is that you get at most one "free" attack while invisible, then the spell ends.

Fluff-wise, it's whatever you want it to be. Some good suggestions have been given in this thread.

[Andezzar]

As others have said, the short answer really is game balance. Invisibility is a powerful advantage in the combat engine, too big an advantage for a 2nd level spell. It is not too big an advantage for a 2nd level spell when used outside of combat, however. So the balance is that you get at most one "free" attack while invisible, then the spell ends.How is attacking repeatedly while invisible more powerful than poisoning a well, planting an explosive or causing a cave to collapse etc. while invisible?

[Segev]

How is attacking repeatedly while invisible more powerful than poisoning a well, planting an explosive or causing a cave to collapse etc. while invisible?

Because those others don't happen in combat.

Remember that D&D is first and foremost balanced for combat; other things are of, at best, secondary consideration. And arguably, if planting the explosive or collapsing the cave causes immediate harm, it counts as an "attack" and breaks the invisibility.

[digiman619]

How is attacking repeatedly while invisible more powerful than poisoning a well, planting an explosive or causing a cave to collapse etc. while invisible?

Because a) you aren't being actively looked for in those situations, but more importantly b) you don't need invisibility to do those things. Sure, invisibility helps get you past guards, but so does a Stealth check, or possibly a Climb check to scale a nearby building and go over their heads.

[Bavarian itP]

Interestingly not only unattended objects can be attacked without breaking the spell. So go around sunder every enemy's weapon.

No. Sunder is a special attack. Attacking ends the spell.


The invisibility isn't broken until after the attack

Debatable.

[Segev]

Debatable.

The RAW do allow you to get the full benefit of your invisibility on your attack against the target, so "ends after the attack" is a pretty good assumption.

[Andezzar]

Because those others don't happen in combat.So?


And arguably, if planting the explosive or collapsing the cave causes immediate harm, it counts as an "attack" and breaks the invisibility.An explosive is harmless until you trigger it and with the cave I did not mean to bring the roof down on the enemies but blocking the exit so that the inhabitants slowly die of starvation, so that action wasn't directly harmful either.


No. Sunder is a special attack. Attacking ends the spell.No, attacking does not end the spell. Attacking a creature ends the spell. The target of a sunder attempt is not a creature but an object.


Because a) you aren't being actively looked for in those situations, but more importantly b) you don't need invisibility to do those things. Sure, invisibility helps get you past guards, but so does a Stealth check, or possibly a Climb check to scale a nearby building and go over their heads.As long as you are not noticed you need none of those. attacking during the surprise round for example gives you all the benefit of flatfooted targets without needing to do anything.

[Kurald Galain]

No, attacking does not end the spell. Attacking a creature ends the spell. The target of a sunder attempt is not a creature but an object.
By the text, attacking an unattended object doesn't break invis. Clearly, sundering somebody's weapon does.

Funnily, back in 2E, invisibility was balanced for combat only, and accordingly had a duration of twenty-four hours.

[Andezzar]

By the text, attacking an unattended object doesn't break invis. Clearly, sundering somebody's weapon does..That is not how logic works.
The character is invisible. Description says that attacking a creature breaks the spell. Also saying that attacking an unattended object does not break the spell says nothing about attended objects, because objects are not creatures. Since attacking an attended object is not attacking a creature, whatever happens after attacking an unattended object is irrelevant to the situation. Attacking an attended object does not fulfil the criterion of attacking a creature, so the spell does not break.

[Kurald Galain]

That is not how logic works.
The character is invisible. Description says that attacking a creature breaks the spell. Also saying that attacking an unattended object does not break the spell says nothing about attended objects, because objects are not creatures. Since attacking an attended object is not attacking a creature, whatever happens after attacking an unattended object is irrelevant to the situation. Attacking an attended object does not fulfil the criterion of attacking a creature, so the spell does not break.

I wish you best of luck finding a DM who'll let you get away with that particular attempt at loopholing :smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

That has nothing to do with using the loop hole but finding them and fixing them through houserules if the RAW do not produce the desired results.

[Segev]

Hm. By the RAW, Sunder does say you're attacking an object. Interestingly, it doesn't change that your foe gets an opposed attack roll. Nor do you gain any actual benefit from invisibility on it, because the benefits are related to the subject being flat-footed. Since Sunder doesn't give special rules when the holder of the target is flat-footed, you don't get the benefits of making him so.

[Bronk]

By the text, attacking an unattended object doesn't break invis. Clearly, sundering somebody's weapon does.

Funnily, back in 2E, invisibility was balanced for combat only, and accordingly had a duration of twenty-four hours.

Heh, and in 1st edition AD&D, the spell lasted indefinitely.

I think the reason the invisibility spell ends when making an attack is because it's an illusion spell, and "A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw." Being attacked by something would be enough proof that there was something invisible around, and I guess it would be enough proof for anyone else around too, and poof, the spell is ended.

Actually, given that rule, it's more interesting that 'Greater Invisibility' doesn't end. I guess it takes two extra spell levels to break the rules of magic...

[Endarire]

It's for mechanical reasons. Don't think too hard.

[Psyren]

While I like the "notice me not field" explanation, I agree that it doesn't need one - it's purely arbitrary and done for balance reasons.

It might have been better if the 4th level version was "Invisibility" and the 2nd level version was "Lesser Invisibility" - that would make its limitations a bit more palatable.

[trikkydik]

Everything you don't know that is there is undetected, not just invisible. You do not need a spell for that.

Interestingly not only unattended objects can be attacked without breaking the spell. So go around sunder every enemy's weapon.

items have to be unattended... read the spell

[Willie the Duck]

Hm. By the RAW, Sunder does say you're attacking an object. Interestingly, it doesn't change that your foe gets an opposed attack roll. Nor do you gain any actual benefit from invisibility on it, because the benefits are related to the subject being flat-footed. Since Sunder doesn't give special rules when the holder of the target is flat-footed, you don't get the benefits of making him so.

If attacking a held object mentions a foe, than you are attacking them, even if it is their weapon that you are targeting.

[Telonius]

I've always wondered why attacking while under the effects of the Invisibility spell caused it to immediately end. I understand it occurs primarily for balancing reasons. But is there a canonical explanation for why this happens? It seems rather bizarre that you can do basically everything else while invisible without any consequence except for this one thing.

Because the original spell was researched by Klingons. General Chang discovered Greater Invisibility.

[atemu1234]

Because whatever reason the DM gives, in that campaign.

[Eldariel]

I like to fluff it as invisibility ending with any high speed contact with a physical object. That is, the spell is fickle and a sudden burst of energy breaks it. Thus, e.g. running breaks it too as well as accidentally running into somebody (e.g. failed Tumble-check), someone running into you, extreme winds, you getting hit by most physical or magical effect and so on.

[Gallowglass]

That is not how logic works.
The character is invisible. Description says that attacking a creature breaks the spell. Also saying that attacking an unattended object does not break the spell says nothing about attended objects, because objects are not creatures. Since attacking an attended object is not attacking a creature, whatever happens after attacking an unattended object is irrelevant to the situation. Attacking an attended object does not fulfil the criterion of attacking a creature, so the spell does not break.

That actually IS how logic works. By definition. "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Logic is a tool for determining outcome of a criteria based on context when there isn't a direct answer. Those "strict principles of validilty" include "if a systems states a specific outcome for a specific binary state, but fails to state the outcome for the alternate binary state, it can be assumed the alternate binary state has a different outcome"

The spell states what happens when you attack an unattended object. (You remain invisible). It does NOT state what happens when you attack an attended object. But the context of the spell, using logic, is that attacking an attended object most likely has a different outcome than attacking an unattended object and there is a binary outcome to the spell (remain invisible, don't remain invisible) so, ergo, attacking an attended object drops invisiblity.

That's the logical analysis.

Like all RAWgic, when a rule CAN be read two different ways, and one way is consistent with the context and the other isn't, you are choosing to go with the inconsistent reading because it suits your desired outcome (breaking the game/finding flaws with the rules)

[Willie the Duck]

I wouldn't bother, Gallowglass. No one ever says, "That is not how logic works" and then proceeds to make a convincing, only-reasonable-conclusion logical argument (if they had a rock-solid case, why would they need that pretend-legitimacy?).

I think we've hammered out the nuts and bolts of this topic. The reason for the attack-ends-invisibility is undoubtedly balance first, and verisimilitude second (if at all). Let's just hear what people's best ways of adding fluffwise justifications are. :-)

[Gallowglass]

I wouldn't bother, Gallowglass. No one ever says, "That is not how logic works" and then proceeds to make a convincing, only-reasonable-conclusion logical argument (if they had a rock-solid case, why would they need that pretend-legitimacy?).

I think we've hammered out the nuts and bolts of this topic. The reason for the attack-ends-invisibility is undoubtedly balance first, and verisimilitude second (if at all). Let's just hear what people's best ways of adding fluffwise justifications are. :-)

Good point. I'm usually better at avoiding the bait like that.

[schreier]

I think that it is similar to the spell slot idea ... from what I've read (and I can't find a link) the spell slots grew out of wargaming as the game was being created ... basically it was similar to keeping track of ammo in the wargames... invisibility dissipating makes sense in that light ... and like many rules - they continue under the weight of precedent

Edit: found the link - https://theevilgm.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/a-brief-history-of-vancian-magic/

[Bohandas]

That is not how logic works.
The character is invisible. Description says that attacking a creature breaks the spell. Also saying that attacking an unattended object does not break the spell says nothing about attended objects, because objects are not creatures. Since attacking an attended object is not attacking a creature, whatever happens after attacking an unattended object is irrelevant to the situation. Attacking an attended object does not fulfil the criterion of attacking a creature, so the spell does not break.

It's implicit that if an a condition is specified as the result of interacting with an explicitly specified type of object than they condition ONLY resukts from interactions wih objects of that type

[Seppo87]

"if a systems states a specific outcome for a specific binary state, but fails to state the outcome for the alternate binary state, it can be assumed the alternate binary state has a different outcome"
(cont) Unless existing rules have previously been stated, that define what happens if no further instructions are provided

Binary condition:
-Attacking an unattended object does not interrupt invisibility
-Attacking an attended object, not specified -> Apply existing rules

The existing rule is as follow: "Unless specified, a spell only ends at the end of its duration"

While Invisibility clearly states that attacking a creature ends the spell, it does NOT state what happens if you attack an attended object.

While the spell states that attacking an unattended object does not end the spell, this does NOT imply that attacking an attended object does, logically speaking. (and I'm talking about real, maths based logic)
This makes the whole statement redundant, naturally.

I'm sorry but by strict raw logic, he's right. You can sunder stuff.

Of course, RAI is crystal clear, and no GM will ever allow RAW

[Necromancy]

I believe the authors are quite reasonable in excluding rulings that a toddler could figure out. There doesn't have to be RAW for everything.

[Willie the Duck]

(cont) Unless existing rules have previously been stated, that define what happens if no further instructions are provided

Binary condition:
-Attacking an unattended object does not interrupt invisibility
-Attacking an attended object, not specified -> Apply existing rules

The existing rule is as follow: "Unless specified, a spell only ends at the end of its duration"

While Invisibility clearly states that attacking a creature ends the spell, it does NOT state what happens if you attack an attended object.

While the spell states that attacking an unattended object does not end the spell, this does NOT imply that attacking an attended object does, logically speaking. (and I'm talking about real, maths based logic)
This makes the whole statement redundant, naturally.

I'm sorry but by strict raw logic, he's right. You can sunder stuff.

Of course, RAI is crystal clear, and no GM will ever allow RAW

Y'see, there it is again. Self-declaring one's interpretation to be in fact logical. It doesn't help your case, it just makes you seem sophomoric enough to think that there's only one coherent argument. I see "Unless existing rules have previously been stated, that define what happens if no further instructions are provided" and think "okay, well the existing rules are that you turn visible if you attack an individual. Invisible guy just said he's making a sunder attempt against an attended item. He's making a touch attack roll against the item-holder's touch AC. Ergo, attack. He turns visible." I might not be right about that. We'll have to go back and get into what constitutes and attack (I suspect it will be murky), but I'm prepared to be convinced I'm wrong. That willingness is why people will take me seriously. Going I'm-clearly-right-and-logic-proves-it puts me in league with a long list of people we've all seen on these columns who went down in flames believing that they were clearly and unambiguously right, and why didn't everyone acknowledge it?



I believe the authors are quite reasonable in excluding rulings that a toddler could figure out. There doesn't have to be RAW for everything.

Well, RAW in general is a false ideal that the actual game designers have never declared to be anything anyone should be attempting to achieve. It really does only exist for navel-gazing.

[Seppo87]

Going I'm-clearly-right-and-logic-proves-it puts me in league with a long list of people we've all seen on these columns who went down in flames believing that they were clearly and unambiguously right, and why didn't everyone acknowledge it?

Because Logic is not easy and not everyone is familiar with it.

However, if you submit the question to someone trained in formal logic, they will support my reading.

Logic is math, math is not ambiguous.
By the rules of logic, Invisibility does not end when attacking an attended object.
Unambiguosly.

I'm sorry this upsets you and other people. Using RAW above RAI is stupid anyway when RAI are so blantantly clear.

[Seppo87]

Okay, we can do it your way.

You are unambiguously wrong. This is because you are being absolutist when presented with a problem with two viable readings.

I am a statistician working in insurance actuarial, I have been for 7 years. I have already stated the very basic rule of logic I utilized to base my early post on. This is a step up from math because this is not presented as a math problem, this is presented as an exercise in simple binary true/false sorting.

I'm sorry this upsets you.

Formal Logic is math.

This is the situation:

Existing rules:
All spells do X when Y (all spells end when the duration runs out)
Spells do not X unless specified

This spell also does X when Z (attacking a creature)
This is an informative statement

Also, the spell says:
This spell does not X if Q (this spell does not end when attacking an unattended object)
This is a redundant statement, as Q would not end any spells anyway.
By formal logic, it was already known, and it's a waste of space.
It does not mean that the opposite of Q causes X

In fact,

"If I don't go out of home, I will not meet people"
does not guarantee that if I go out of home I will meet people.

This might look unclear to you who seem to be used to some kind of derived, non formal logic.
However, it is surprising that you don't understand the difference between "sufficient" and "necessary" which should make it immediately clear

[Gallowglass]

Formal Logic is math.

This is the situation:

Existing rules:
All spells do X when Y (all spells end when the duration runs out)
Spells do not X unless specified

This spell also does X when Z (attacking a creature)
This is an informative statement

Also, the spell says:
This spell does not X if Q (this spell does not end when attacking an unattended object)
This is a redundant statement, as Q would not end any spells anyway.
By formal logic, it was already known, and it's a waste of space.
It does not mean that the opposite of Q causes X

In fact,

"If I don't go out of home, I will not meet people"
does not guarantee that if I go out of home I will meet people.

This might look unclear to you who seem to be used to some kind of derived, non formal logic.
However, it is surprising that you don't understand the difference between "sufficient" and "necessary" which should make it immediately clear

I had already deleted my post that you are replying to because, as the good advice I was given earlier, there is no point in arguing with someone like you. So feel free to do as you will.

[Seppo87]

I had already deleted my post that you are replying to because, as the good advice I was given earlier, there is no point in arguing with someone like you. So feel free to do as you will.

I would never use Invisibility as written, I would not advise RAW over RAI, however IF you care about truth and facts you should admit that by formal logic, technically, unambiguosly, it does not say nor mean that attacking an attanded object ends the spell.

IF B does not cause A, it does not also mean that not B causes A. This is a basic, fundamental rule.

[Andezzar]

Thanks Seppo87, for continuing my train of thought. I totally agree. By formal logic attacking an attended object does not break invisibility. That has nothing to do with how I want to play it either. I just reread the description and was surprised that they do not mention attacking attended objects as breaking the spell.


If attacking a held object mentions a foe, than you are attacking them, even if it is their weapon that you are targeting.Interesting stand point. Do the rules support it? Please quote a rule if they do.
Can I use it for other benefits? If I am really attacking the creature holding the object, the effect of the attack should also apply to the holder, shouldn't it?

[Kurald Galain]

That actually IS how logic works. By definition. "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Logic is a tool for determining outcome of a criteria based on context when there isn't a direct answer. Those "strict principles of validilty" include "if a systems states a specific outcome for a specific binary state, but fails to state the outcome for the alternate binary state, it can be assumed the alternate binary state has a different outcome"

The spell states what happens when you attack an unattended object. (You remain invisible). It does NOT state what happens when you attack an attended object. But the context of the spell, using logic, is that attacking an attended object most likely has a different outcome than attacking an unattended object and there is a binary outcome to the spell (remain invisible, don't remain invisible) so, ergo, attacking an attended object drops invisiblity.

That's the logical analysis.

Like all RAWgic, when a rule CAN be read two different ways, and one way is consistent with the context and the other isn't, you are choosing to go with the inconsistent reading because it suits your desired outcome (breaking the game/finding flaws with the rules)

Well said. Logic burn! :smallbiggrin:

[Seppo87]

Well said. Logic burn! :smallbiggrin:

That's a strictly wrong statement by logic. You're misusing words.

You could call that "deduction", Logic is something else.
Logic follows a specific set of rules, by which saying stuff like "But the context of the spell, using logic, is that attacking an attended object most likely has a different outcome than attacking an unattended object" makes absolutely zero sense.

What is "most likely"? Can you quantify it? How do you even decide it's "most likely" by applying strict logical rules? You just can't

By logic, when A = not B, it does NOT mean that Not A = B.

Example:

-If the meteor of death and doom falls, humanity will not survive
Does not guarantee, by any means, that
-If the metor of death and doom doesn't fall, humanity will survive
In fact, while we know that A is sufficient for NonB, we cannot be sure that A is necessary for notB
notB might occur for other reasons.

What you CAN be sure about, however, is that, given that A= notB, then, IF B, then necessarily NotA

"If humanity is alive, the metor of death and doom has not fallen"

Simple as that. You can keep talking about logic if you will, however, what you're trying to do here is not logic.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry but by strict raw logic, he's right. You can sunder stuff.


No, you can't. In both 3.5 and PF, Sunder is a special attack against the target, where the damage is applied to their held item.


Step 1
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder.


When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

So in both cases, you're still attacking the creature and therefore invisibility will break.

[Knight Magenta]

My thinking is this: Magic does not work by tweaking photons and fiddling with matter. Magic manipulates concepts directly. Invisibility does not bend light, It applies the "This thing is really really stealthy. Like +20 stealthy" to a creature. When you make an attack, the concept of hiding and the concept of aggression that you attempt to simultaneously embody clash and the spell fails.

Sanctuary works the same way, but it imposes the concept of peace on enemies, that try to attack you.

Improved invisibility does not use the concept of "stealth" but of "assassination," and thus meshes perfectly with the idea of attacking. Assassination is a more complex concept, so needs a higher level spell.

[Seppo87]

No, you can't. In both 3.5 and PF, Sunder is a special attack against the target, where the damage is applied to their held item.





So in both cases, you're still attacking the creature and therefore invisibility will break.

Maybe -
If sundering an attended object always counts as an attack vs a creature, then it clearly falls under the "attacking a creature" rule. This is a logical, well supported argument.

However, I am not sure if the premise is true.

Do Combat Maneuvers count as attacks ?
Iirc, they Replace attacks, but are not.

[Psyren]

However, do Combat Maneuvers count as attacks?

Yes - a CMB roll is always an attack roll.

[Seppo87]

Yes - a CMB roll is always an attack roll.
Good, I checked and it's true.
This has convinced me.

Thank you for clearing this up.

[Necromancy]

Can we all agree to stop using "logic". It's a set of formal rules for how/how not to state an argument. Most people use them incorrectly and it's rather irritating to endure.

Prime example, arguing that "logic says this" qualifies as an appeal to authority. Just by mentioning logic.... You broke it.

[Ruslan]

I always thought of Invisibility as something like SEP (Someone Else's Problem) Field from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. People tend not to see someone else's problems. When you attack, you become their problem. Of course that doesn't explain why everyone can see you once you attack (and not just the target of your attack), so not a full explanation I guess.

[Urpriest]

My thinking is this: Magic does not work by tweaking photons and fiddling with matter. Magic manipulates concepts directly. Invisibility does not bend light, It applies the "This thing is really really stealthy. Like +20 stealthy" to a creature. When you make an attack, the concept of hiding and the concept of aggression that you attempt to simultaneously embody clash and the spell fails.

Sanctuary works the same way, but it imposes the concept of peace on enemies, that try to attack you.

Improved invisibility does not use the concept of "stealth" but of "assassination," and thus meshes perfectly with the idea of attacking. Assassination is a more complex concept, so needs a higher level spell.

Sanctuary is the right example here, but I think you're going a bit further with your spell metaphysics than you need to.

Why does attacking break Sanctuary? Because that would be unfair. Because Sanctuary is not a spell that prevents people from attacking you, it is a spell that prevents people from attacking you, provided you don't attack them. Similarly, Invisibility isn't a spell that makes you invisible. It's a spell that makes you invisible as long as you don't attack anyone, because if you could attack with it, that would be unfair. (Higher level spells then allow you to do more unfair things.)

This is a game with spells like Binding in it. Having idiosyncratic effects and weird special cases isn't something that has to be explained, or something you need some sort of detailed metaphysics for, it's what spells are.

[SethoMarkus]

Unfortunately, the creators of 3.5 (most likely) were not writing the rules using formal Logic, rather (it seems) they were using conversational language (almost like this is a game or something).

Logic as per Mathematics is fairly irrelevant here. The wording in the written books have been wildly inconsistent; if we attempted to apply formal Logic to the entire ruleset simultaneously it would result inba broken and unplayable game.

As the thread has already decided that the RAI is superior to the RAW for these spells, and has decided to instead focus on possible fluff reasons for the spells to work the way they do, there can be no right or wrong answers at this point.

Let's drop the arguments of RAW and Logic and get back to discussing silly justifications for magic, an inherently illogical concept.

[Necromancy]

Unfortunately, the creators of 3.5 (most likely) were not writing the rules using formal Logic, rather (it seems) they were using conversational language (almost like this is a game or something).

How would they use "formal logic"? The writers were writing rules for a game , not stating an argument.




Logic as per Mathematics is fairly irrelevant here. The wording in the written books have been wildly inconsistent; if we attempted to apply formal Logic to the entire ruleset simultaneously it would result inba broken and unplayable game.

There isn't a direct correlation from logic to math. Logic applies to language, of which math is derived from.




As the thread has already decided that the RAI is superior to the RAW for these spells, and has decided to instead focus on possible fluff reasons for the spells to work the way they do, there can be no right or wrong answers at this point.

No, there is no RAW. They didn't spell out a ruling on an absurd question because it's blatantly obvious what the answer would be. Lack of RAW is not free license to do whatever you can get away with.




Let's drop the arguments of RAW and Logic and get back to discussing silly justifications for magic, an inherently illogical concept.

Let's stop using the word "logic" till we learn it from someone other than Spock

[digiman619]

Let's stop using the word "logic" till we learn it from someone other than Spock

What about Sarek?

[Necromancy]

What about Sarek?

I had to look that up

[atemu1234]

Can we all agree to stop using "logic". It's a set of formal rules for how/how not to state an argument. Most people use them incorrectly and it's rather irritating to endure.

Prime example, arguing that "logic says this" qualifies as an appeal to authority. Just by mentioning logic.... You broke it.

Logic is more akin to how to make a statement that is capable of being supported rationally. The 'Fallacy' Fallacy is a thing, but the irony of it is that it lends itself to the ''Fallacy' Fallacy' Fallacy, which lends itself to...

[Bax]

Speaking of Spock/Sarek from Star Trek: Romulan cloaking devices had the same limitation. "The biggest weakness is that the device has such high power demand, it must be deactivated for a ship to enter combat." exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Cloaking_device
So, no shortage of good reasons in and out of stories to limit invisibility...

[Segev]

If attacking a held object mentions a foe, than you are attacking them, even if it is their weapon that you are targeting.Er, no. You can have an opponent in a chess game that you're playing while invisible, and you're not attacking that creature just because you're doing something to pieces he controls in the game. "Attacking a creature" means what it says it means. The rules for Sunder would have to have some sort of mention of attacking a creature to break invisibility. They do not. Not once. I looked carefully; I wanted to say "no, clearly sundering a weapon breaks invisibility by the RAW." But...it doesn't. (It also doesn't, I think, grant any of the benefits of invisibility, though; your foe being flat-footed doesn't stop him from making the opposed attack roll, and he doesn't have a 50% miss chance on it since he's not attacking you.)


I would never use Invisibility as written, I would not advise RAW over RAI, however IF you care about truth and facts you should admit that by formal logic, technically, unambiguosly, it does not say nor mean that attacking an attanded object ends the spell.

IF B does not cause A, it does not also mean that not B causes A. This is a basic, fundamental rule.Yep. Well said. The RAW are what they are. Of course, house rules are a thing for a reason.


No, you can't. In both 3.5 and PF, Sunder is a special attack against the target, where the damage is applied to their held item.

So in both cases, you're still attacking the creature and therefore invisibility will break.
You'll have to provide a specific textual support for that, Psyren. The rule doesn't say anything about the target being the creature holding the item. It says, explicitly and specifically, that you attack the object the creature is holding. The target of the attack is therefore the object, not the creature. So until you provide text saying what you claim it says, I can only look at the RAW and see what's there.

---ah! I think I see what you're looking at. It does name the creature as the "target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder" under Step 1: Attacks of Opportunity. However...invisibility says nothing about ending if you target a creature. Only if you attack a creature. And Sunder says you're attacking the object, not the creature. Even if the creature is the target.

Fiddly wording. I certainly would support a DM who said Sundering ends invisibility. And who gave flat-footed penalties to the holder of a targeted item for the guy Sundering said item being invisible. As is, however, the RAW do not support either.

[Kurald Galain]

Logic is more akin to how to make a statement that is capable of being supported rationally. The 'Fallacy' Fallacy is a thing, but the irony of it is that it lends itself to the ''Fallacy' Fallacy' Fallacy, which lends itself to...

Yo dawg! I heard you like fallacies...

[Florian]

How would they use "formal logic"? The writers were writing rules for a game , not stating an argument.

Rules are a tool to prevent having an argument.
And you can see some bare minimum of a better implementation with the keywords as used in 4E. Quit a lot of things are tagged with keywords and you can easily cross-reference them.
We wouldn´t have this discussion when part of the verbose descriptions in some spells would have been replaced with a similar system in d20, a bit like PF tried to formalize conditions more.
So if the wording was like "Invisibility breaks when trying an action with the "Attack" or "Combat" keyword", then all we´d need to do is look up if Sunder had one of those keywords attached to it.

That, incidentally, also goes back to an earlier discussion on when actual combat should formally start.

[Mutazoia]

By the text, attacking an unattended object doesn't break invis. Clearly, sundering somebody's weapon does.

I would argue that a weapon being carried on someone's person is considered to be "attended" since, you know...it is actually strapped to their body, and may be serving as a convenient hand rest at the time.

As for the OP question:

As others have stated, you can fluff it any way you want, but the answer is mechanical balance. It would be way to OP for such a low level spell otherwise.

This spell is a holdover from 1st and 2nd ed, which wasn't all about combat like 3.X + versions are. You were encouraged to find ways to avoid combat, as much as you were to charge in.

[Willie the Duck]

Er, no. You can have an opponent in a chess game that you're playing while invisible, and you're not attacking that creature just because you're doing something to pieces he controls in the game. "Attacking a creature" means what it says it means. The rules for Sunder would have to have some sort of mention of attacking a creature to break invisibility. They do not. Not once. I looked carefully; I wanted to say "no, clearly sundering a weapon breaks invisibility by the RAW." But...it doesn't. (It also doesn't, I think, grant any of the benefits of invisibility, though; your foe being flat-footed doesn't stop him from making the opposed attack roll, and he doesn't have a 50% miss chance on it since he's not attacking you.)


The rules for sunder include making an attack roll against their touch AC. That's support if not absolute, but as I said later, there likely isn't an absolute. There is no absolute definition in the game for what constitutes an attack against another (unless you would only consider things which require attack rolls against the target's AC, which would be equally incongruous, since then fireballing them wouldn't count). The game is inconsistent in that regard. Certain things require attack rolls by the offense, and certain rolls require defense rolls by the defense (saving throws). Saving throws are clearly required for non-attack actions (interacting with an illusionary wall, for instance). It's unclear if there are non-attack actions which require attack rolls. Here formalistic logic breaks down because we don't have a universally accepted definition of the basic terms we are using to make our arguments.

In the end, it's not just RAW vs. RAI or RAW vs. house rules. There is a practical limitation to RAW, and one of them is the vagaries of the language in which the rules are crafted.

[Spore]

If you accept a more esoteric explanation. Attacking makes the aura of the creature more violent and apparent. This is a situation a meek illusion spell like invisibility cannot cover and thus ultimatively crumbles.

Although I heavily dislike esoterics in real life I have always found that its "explanations" fit most D&D magic pretty well.

[Necromancy]

If you accept a more esoteric explanation. Attacking makes the aura of the creature more violent and apparent. This is a situation a meek illusion spell like invisibility cannot cover and thus ultimatively crumbles.

Although I heavily dislike esoterics in real life I have always found that its "explanations" fit most D&D magic pretty well.

Invisibility follows all the rules of illusion spells with two exceptions

#1 disbelieve saves automatically succeed

#2 a successful disbelieve save ends the spell completely instead of just suppressing it for the person who saved

This is why I compare it to a soap bubble. It also makes sense that it's just a personal sized invisibility sphere spell

[Psyren]

You'll have to provide a specific textual support for that, Psyren. The rule doesn't say anything about the target being the creature holding the item. It says, explicitly and specifically, that you attack the object the creature is holding. The target of the attack is therefore the object, not the creature. So until you provide text saying what you claim it says, I can only look at the RAW and see what's there.

Er, I did. Do quote tags not show up in your browser? :smallconfused:

"You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target whose weapon or shield you are trying to sunder."

Unless you're trying to claim that the weapon or shield you're trying to sunder also has a weapon or shield that you're trying to sunder (shieldception!), it's pretty clear due to English that the "target" in that rules sentence is the creature, not the object the creature is holding.

[Jay R]

It wasn’t a 3.5e decision. It’s been the case through many editions. Going back to original D&D, which says that invisibility lasts until an attack, “just as in Chainmail”. Going back to the Chainmail rules for medieval miniatures, we find:

“Wizards can become invisible and remain so until they attack”

In the list of magical creatures, we find “SPRITES (and Pixies): These are also small creatures who have the power to become invisible -- and remain so in battle !”

So as near as I can tell, attacking ends invisibility so units of Pixies would be worth having in a massed battle.

[SethoMarkus]

How would they use "formal logic"? The writers were writing rules for a game , not stating an argument.

They could keep Logic in mind as they wrote the rules, however, by operationally defining the terms they use and keeping to clear, concise, consistent language.



There isn't a direct correlation from logic to math. Logic applies to language, of which math is derived from.


Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.



No, there is no RAW. They didn't spell out a ruling on an absurd question because it's blatantly obvious what the answer would be. Lack of RAW is not free license to do whatever you can get away with.

I am not saying it is a free license to do what you want. The spell does not give a reason for why the spell works the way it does, which is what this thread is attempting to figure out. And there may or may not be any RAW, but that is precisely why I am making this post- to move on from such discussion.



Let's stop using the word "logic" till we learn it from someone other than Spock

Again, the purpose of my post was to do precisely that. To encourage discussion away from using Formal Logic to justify a certain reading of the rules since the writers were not keeping such in mind as they wrote the rules and did not intend for the rules to be taken as absolute law but as guidelines to playing a game.

So thank you, actually, since everything you said supported my original intent.

[Mutazoia]

While you all are arguing this minor point, do keep in mind that 3.0 was basically copy-pasta'd on top of WoTC's pre-existing RPG...the one they tried to release close to a decade before they acquired TSR. This means that a lot of rules, concepts, and verbage were grandfathered in with little to no oversight. Which is why we wound up with 3.5, as WoTC basically said "oops...we probably should have proof read this crap first" and went back trying to fix some of the stuff that slipped through. A lot of the stuff that was designed and balanced for 1st and 2nd ed were broken for the new 3.0 rule set (such as haste)....using the 2nd ed spell effects on top of 3rd ed meta-magic makes things even worse.

With 3.X, casters are already OP. Seeking to justify giving them even more power, just because you think a 2nd level spell should be just as powerful as a much higher one, frankly, is pretty munchkin IMHO.

Now you can sit here and argue RAW vs RAI all day, but in this case, they are exactly the same. There is very little way you could argue that saying a mage is invisible until he makes an attack, really means only SOME attacks. An attack is an attack is an attack. Period. It really doesn't matter what you are attacking. If you have to make an attack roll of any kind, it's an attack. If you don't need to make an attack roll of any kind, it's not an attack.

Simple.

[Seppo87]

With 3.X, casters are already OP. Seeking to justify giving them even more power, just because you think a 2nd level spell should be just as powerful as a much higher one, frankly, is pretty munchkin IMHO.
Has it ever occurred to you that one might support a conclusion they don't like simply because it's true?

Frankly, I can't determine if a CM counts as an attack for the spell purposes, RAW.
Segev's argument seems sound, the same is true for some counter arguments.

While I'm not sure which answer is correct, I'm still interested to know.

Regardless of the correct answer, I already stated that I always used and alwys will use Invisibility as RAI.

This has nothing to do with alleged munchkinism.

[Segev]

I could see a munchkin trying to use the argument that the RAW says this. I see most DMs saying "yeah, no." I fully support the latter.

The SIMPLEST way to run it is to treat Sundering as breaking invisibility, but getting all the advantages of invisibility. It makes the most sense fluff-wise, too. This is one of those little rules dysfunctions that is easily ignored because it takes a lot of care to even notice it's there.

[Psyren]

I could see a munchkin trying to use the argument that the RAW says this. I see most DMs saying "yeah, no." I fully support the latter.

The SIMPLEST way to run it is to treat Sundering as breaking invisibility, but getting all the advantages of invisibility. It makes the most sense fluff-wise, too. This is one of those little rules dysfunctions that is easily ignored because it takes a lot of care to even notice it's there.

So... you agree with me then? Because this is exactly what I was saying; you're invisible right through your sunder attempt, then it drops, because it requires attacking your target.

[Mutazoia]

Has it ever occurred to you that one might support a conclusion they don't like simply because it's true?

Frankly, I can't determine if a CM counts as an attack for the spell purposes, RAW.
Segev's argument seems sound, the same is true for some counter arguments.

While I'm not sure which answer is correct, I'm still interested to know.

Regardless of the correct answer, I already stated that I always used and alwys will use Invisibility as RAI.

This has nothing to do with alleged munchkinism.

The problem with RAI is that you didn't write the rule, so you have no clue what was intended when it was written...you are just assuming you do, because that's what you WANT it to be.

There was a thread a year or so back, where the OP was arguing that casting Tongues allowed you to read and write the languages that you could now, temporarily, speak because one line back in the languages section stated that characters can automatically read and write any language they could speak. His argument was that by using Tongues, his character could now forge a document in a language he didn't know.

RAW was that tongues only allows you to speak the language, comprehend languages gives you the ability to read/write "foreign" languages. But because he REALLY wanted to use Tongues in a way that wasn't stated in the spell description, he was dead set on his RAI opinion. They wanted a lower level spell to work exactly the same as, if not better than, a higher level one. Munchkin IMHO. You are free to differ with the munchkin opinion.

The line from the languages section was basically there as a way to change languages from 2nd ed, where characters were not guaranteed literacy...they had to use non-weapon proficiencies to be able to read/write. Which is a bit more "realistic" (I know...taboo word in a "but magic" discussion). I speak a bit of Japanese due to pure exposure (lived there for 3 years), but don't ask me to read Kanji.

Arguing RAI is simply pulling bits and pieces from other parts of the rules to justify what ever it is you wish the rules said.

[Seppo87]

The problem with RAI is that you didn't write the rule, so you have no clue what was intended when it was written...Judging by what you wrote compared to what you're answering to, I have to agree that for some people this is a very real problem.

[Necromancy]

Judging by what you wrote compared to what you're answering to, I have to agree that for some people this is a very real problem.

Huh? With statements that murky, you should be writing your own splatbooks

Please rewrite all statements in formal logic

[Segev]

So... you agree with me then? Because this is exactly what I was saying; you're invisible right through your sunder attempt, then it drops, because it requires attacking your target.

I agree that that's how it probably should be run. I am not positive that it technically jives with the RAW. In fact, I think it doesn't. But the literal and accurate application of the R exactly AW in this case seems dysfunctional, so running it in a more intuitive fashion that requires some mild house ruling seems wiser, to me.

[Willie the Duck]

Huh? With statements that murky, you should be writing your own splatbooks

Please rewrite all statements in formal logic

Why should he?

[Necromancy]

Why should he?

Because sarcasm

[Trunamer]

No, there's not; this is one of the oldest examples of a disassociated mechanic.
I bet the h4ter who came up with the term has some rationalized argument for you. ;)


It's for mechanical reasons. Don't think too hard.
QFT. Without house rules, there's just no compelling fluff explanation. It's pure gamism as written. :)


Because the original spell was researched by Klingons. General Chang discovered Greater Invisibility.
Best explanation ever. :D

[Psyren]

I agree that that's how it probably should be run. I am not positive that it technically jives with the RAW. In fact, I think it doesn't. But the literal and accurate application of the R exactly AW in this case seems dysfunctional, so running it in a more intuitive fashion that requires some mild house ruling seems wiser, to me.

By R exactly AW, sunder is an attack on the target, i.e. the creature. I've provided citations to that effect.

EDIT: I think it's best if I take my leave of this thread.

[Andezzar]

By R exactly AW, sunder is an attack on the target, i.e. the creature. I've provided citations to that effect.It is not that clear:
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

[...]

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC.To me it makes little sense to call an action that damages an item and has no direct impact on the creature holding that item an attack against that creature.

[Necromancy]

It is not that clear:To me it makes little sense to call an action that damages an item and has no direct impact on the creature holding that item an attack against that creature.

Then explain why a carried magic item uses your saving throws

[Segev]

By R exactly AW, sunder is an attack on the target, i.e. the creature. I've provided citations to that effect.

I've responded to your citations. At best, you've got the holder of the object listed as a "target." Sadly, nowhere in Sunder does it say you're attacking the target.

Yes, it's silly.

But it says you're attacking the object. It never once says you're attacking the creature holding it, even though it names the creature a "target." (Notably, it doesn't even name the creature a target of the attack.)

For the R exactly AW to have invisibility end, it would either have to say that it ends when you "target" a creature, or it would have to name the creature as what is being attacked. As it is, the language all but says that it means for you to count as attacking the creature... ... ... ...but it doesn't actually say that you do. So a strict reading of the R exactly AW...doesn't support, inherently, that sundering an object held by a creature breaks invisibility.


Again: I wholeheartedly agree that anybody reading it that finely with the intent to try to play it with invisibility not breaking because all you're doing is attacking objects creatures are holding deserves what they get. That is, their invisibility is likewise irrelevant because all of the game effects of invisibility fail to interact with the mechanics of a Sunder attempt. So run it the way intuition would say you do, by treating it as an attack on the creature, which invokes all the clauses of invisibility. Because now the flat-footed creature's flat-footed state matters by the same inferences made to make it the one being attacked.

[Mutazoia]

Please rewrite all statements in formal logic


All Penguins are black and white.
All old movies are black and white.
Therefor, all old movies are Penguins.

[Seppo87]

Then explain why a carried magic item uses your saving throws
{scrubbed image}

Oh, and, BTW, your "sarcarsm" is neither witty nor fun.

Also, you probably didn't notice, but this stuff you're saying about magic items counting as part of the character for non-saves related purposes because they share the saving throw is the same as saying movies are penguins because they're both in black and white.

*yawn* it's not even a discussion anymore. But please, feel free to make more mistakes that I'll readily find and expose.

[Kurald Galain]

So logically speaking, if your character makes an ad hominem attack, that will break invisibility, yes?

[Necromancy]

All Penguins are black and white.
All old movies are black and white.
Therefor, all old movies are Penguins.

This is that formal logic we all want to see entire core rule books written in. I'd totally read it.


{scrubbed image in quote}

Oh, and, BTW, your "sarcarsm" is neither witty nor fun.

Also, you probably didn't notice, but this stuff you're saying about magic items counting as part of the character for non-saves related purposes because they share the saving throw is the same as saying movies are penguins because they're both in black and white.

*yawn* it's not even a discussion anymore. But please, feel free to make more mistakes that I'll readily find and expose.

Your attempts to sound educated and intelligent amuse me. Please continue.



So logically speaking, if your character makes an ad hominem attack, that will break invisibility, yes?

Yes, but only if

A) you're a Bard
B) it's tuesday
Or
C) you're targeting the DM

[Willie the Duck]

*yawn* it's not even a discussion anymore. But please, feel free to make more mistakes that I'll readily find and expose.

Oh please, continue to try to declare yourself the winner and the intelligent sounding one through sheer force of will. That always works very well for people.

[Mutazoia]

Oh please, continue to try to declare yourself the winner and the intelligent sounding one through sheer force of will. That always works very well for people.

You've been dealt with, linguistically. As you were...

[Anlashok]

*yawn* it's not even a discussion anymore. But please, feel free to make more mistakes that I'll readily find and expose.

I'm not really sure I'd call childish insults 'exposing' anything. In fact generally when you have to resort to insults it's more indicative that you've lost the argument, as you've clearly run out of anything meaningful to say.

Acting pretentious about it doesn't change that.

[Seppo87]

In fact generally when you have to resort to insults it's more indicative that you've lost the argument, as you've clearly run out of anything meaningful to say
Being not the case, this is not relevant.

[Anlashok]

Being not the case, this is not relevant.

You say that but looking at your post again, I don't see much in the way of counterarguments or citations or really anything of substance at all.

So... not very compelling.

[Seppo87]

I don't see much in the way of counterarguments
This is strange, I suggest you re-read it.

I understand you are trying to invalidate my posts which tone you don't like, so you'll probably pretend there's no counterargument when, in fact, there are 2.

[Segev]

Also, you probably didn't notice, but this stuff you're saying about magic items counting as part of the character for non-saves related purposes because they share the saving throw is the same as saying movies are penguins because they're both in black and white.

I believe he's referring to this. But I only see it counting as 1 counter-argument; if there's a second, I cannot find it.

Regardless of his tone, I think he's right with this point: just because magic items share your saving throws doesn't mean you're the target when they have to make a save. Any more than a wizard's familiar benefitting from his master's skill ranks means his master is making the skill check.

[Seppo87]

if there's a second, I cannot find it.
The comic is about people trying to shift the burden of proof.

Anyway, if my tone has been excessive, I apologize.

[Necromancy]

He was trying to counter my argument... Except I didn't make an argument to begin with. Another person made a broad statement and expected it to be taken as fact and I cited precedence that disagreed with it.

[Seppo87]

He was trying to counter my argument... Except I didn't make an argument to begin with. Another person made a broad statement and expected it to be taken as fact and I cited precedence that disagreed with it.
I'm starting to suspect this is on purpose. I wish it is, because it would be really funny and a marvelous example of internet trolling..

In the case you actually mean what you write, however, no, you didn't simply cite a precedent.
The way you formulated your question was rhetorical.
You were implying that his statement was false because of that exception.
That was your thesis, although implicit.
(I'm actually curious to find out if you'll be bold enough to deny even this)

It was then proved that what you cited as an exception was actually unrelated and didn't prove anything, making your rhetorical question inherently flawed and useless.

Oh and BTW I'm not really interested in anything that some people bestowed me; either sounding smart, or claiming that I'm right.
I'm just having fun pointing flawed arguments when I see one.
I don't even care if some can't follow.

[Segev]

{scrubbed}

[Seppo87]

{scrubbed}

[Necromancy]

Evolution arguments don't follow formal logic.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked. It seems to have devolved into insults and inappropriate topics.