Does counterspelling break your Invisibility?

[drebb]

Can't find a definite rule on this.

[Chrono22]

Yeah, that sounds like a tough ruling. I'd say it depends on the DM..
if it was my call, I'd say, some spells end it and some don't.
Ones that deal targetted or area damage, or create an effect that causes any overt harm to your enemy (as an effect) count.
And the method you are using to counterspell it also matters... I'd say, using a readied dispel magic would never end your invisibility. Readying an action to counterspell a fireball using another fireball would.

[Quietus]

No, because in order to break your Invisibility, you need to "make an attack", which a dispel counterspell is not. If at any point your actions force an attack roll or a saving throw, then your invisibility breaks - so, say, if you had mastery of counterspelling and reflected a charm spell, THAT would break your invisibility. But if you plain old boring dispel a fireball, it doesn't, because the fireball just fizzles.

::Edit:: Sorry guys, used the wrong word and caused confusion.

[Curmudgeon]

No, because in order to break your Invisibility, you need to "make an attack", which a dispel is not.

Who's talking about dispel? The subject is counterspelling, which can use Dispel Magic to counter a spell, but that's just an option. Regardless, nothing is being dispelled even if you use Dispel Magic for counterspelling.

[ghashxx]

Whether you're counterspelling or dispelling it doesn't matter, invisibility stays intact.

[Defiant]

Who's talking about dispel? The subject is counterspelling, which can use Dispel Magic to counter a spell, but that's just an option. Regardless, nothing is being dispelled even if you use Dispel Magic for counterspelling.

Counterspelling still isn't an attack, IMO.

A fireball spell used to dispel a fireball spell (i.e. a fireball counterspell) is not the same as casting a fireball spell.

[Claudius Maximus]

Counterspelling is not an attack. If you reflected the spell or its caster took damage or something from an ability you have, then it might be.

Casting Dispel Magic on somebody is an attack, whether it be an area dispel or a targeted dispel. Using Dispel Magic to counterspell is not an attack.

[Quietus]

Who's talking about dispel? The subject is counterspelling, which can use Dispel Magic to counter a spell, but that's just an option. Regardless, nothing is being dispelled even if you use Dispel Magic for counterspelling.

You're entirely correct. For some reason, Dispel Magic stuck in my head, and I used the wrong term. I'll correct that.

[jmbrown]

Casting Dispel Magic on somebody is an attack, whether it be an area dispel or a targeted dispel. Using Dispel Magic to counterspell is not an attack.

I've never ruled this. There's no saving throw and no spell resistance applied to dispel magic. You can't use dispel to inflict harm on somebody else. If you deliberately dispelled someone's fly, for example, and they tumbled to the ground I'd rule it as an attack but there's nothing inherently hostile about casting dispel.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

No, because in order to break your Invisibility, you need to "make an attack", which a dispel counterspell is not. If at any point your actions force an attack roll or a saving throw, then your invisibility breaks - so, say, if you had mastery of counterspelling and reflected a charm spell, THAT would break your invisibility. But if you plain old boring dispel a fireball, it doesn't, because the fireball just fizzles.

::Edit:: Sorry guys, used the wrong word and caused confusion.

I agree with your conclusions, but I think invisibility works a little differently than that:

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

Via SRD. There are spells without saving throws or attack rolls that count as attacks (Solid Fog, targeted or area Dispel Magic), and there are spell effects and mundane actions that would require saving throws that do not count as attacks (cutting the rope bridge and forcing a reflex save to hang on and avoid falling into the pool of lava).

As far as counterspelling goes, though, I believe you're right. So long as the counterspeller only targets the spell as his action, it's not an attack.

Edit: Now that I think about it, you could target an object (such as a particular magic item) with a targeted Dispel Magic, and it wouldn't count as an attack.

[ericgrau]

I've never ruled this. There's no saving throw and no spell resistance applied to dispel magic. You can't use dispel to inflict harm on somebody else. If you deliberately dispelled someone's fly, for example, and they tumbled to the ground I'd rule it as an attack but there's nothing inherently hostile about casting dispel.

Does that mean if I join your group I can cast solid fog on top of somebody and stay invisible? Sleet storm? Wall of ice, hemisphere form, too large to allow the target a save. A 100 other such spells? I could make a viable build around this, as these are some of my favorite spells anyway.

I'd consider dispel (and the above spells) against a creature an attack simply because it's an offensive action that targets others. IMO counterspelling wouldn't break invisiblity though, nor dispel targetted against a spell.

OTOH there are still a couple useful combat spells that could be used while invisible, like the some of the wall spells.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Does that mean if I join your group I can cast solid fog on top of somebody and stay invisible? Sleet storm? Wall of ice, hemisphere form, too large to allow the target a save. A 100 other such spells? I could make a viable build around this, as these are some of my favorite spells anyway.

I'd consider dispel (and the above spells) against a creature an attack simply because it's an offensive action that targets others. IMO counterspelling wouldn't break invisiblity though, nor dispel targetted against a spell.

OTOH there are still a couple useful combat spells that could be used while invisible, like the some of the wall spells.

I'm under the impression Invisibility + Summon Swarm was a highly-touted solo level 3 wizard tactic around these parts. Anyway, by the time you can start throwing around Wall of Ice and Solid Fog is it that big of a difference to have to cast Greater Invisibility instead? I mean, I would stick to the RAW in this case, but I don't know if you could make a build centered off saving a 4th level spell slot and having a longer duration.

[ericgrau]

Eventually I'd get a ring of invisibility and be invisible forever. Screw spending round 1 on it. And sleet storm is 3rd level .

Summons are specifically allowed since they aren't direct attacks. But they also tend to be fairly weak. Summon swarm is often touted for its immunity to normal weapon damage, but otherwise it's still a low CR creature that's still fairly weak. Simply ignoring its poor damage or running away is a viable option. Or any handy source of fire like an ordinary torch can take it down, or many special abilities, etc.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ah, I wasn't thinking of permanent items. That would break it for sure.

[Baron Corm]

Counterspelling is an action directed at another creature which the creature does not want you to direct at them, so I would say it does break invisibility, and so would dispelling. These aren't examples of "causing harm indirectly", you are definitely targeting the creature. Invisibility mentions that "actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell", so I would assume that a dispel targeted at an attended item would break it as well.

[Quietus]

Counterspelling is an action directed at another creature which the creature does not want you to direct at them, so I would say it does break invisibility, and so would dispelling. These aren't examples of "causing harm indirectly", you are definitely targeting the creature. Invisibility mentions that "actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell", so I would assume that a dispel targeted at an attended item would break it as well.

My take on this is that counter-spelling is already a rather poor choice for your action; Better to ready a Scorching Ray or Fireball for when they begin to cast. You don't have to play around with spellcraft to identify their spell, and then hope you have the right spell known/in memory in order to counter it, you just force a concentration check high enough they can't make it. Due to this, having a wizard who spends his actions turning invisible and countering an enemy caster .. isn't such a big deal, and a rather interesting use of the spell. Specially when you consider how much else that wizard could actually be doing.

[deuxhero]

I'd say no, unless it is directly harmful (anti-featherfall is about all that comes up).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hm, I should have looked up counterspelling in the first place. Via SRD:

To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell.

Counterspelling targets the foe, not the spell, so RAW says it's an attack.

[Quietus]

Hm, I should have looked up counterspelling in the first place. Via SRD:


Counterspelling targets the foe, not the spell, so RAW says it's an attack.

Hm. Right you are.

I'd still allow an invisible mage to counterspell a foe without breaking their invisibility, though. But only if my players came up with it on their own, or it made for a really wicked dramatic scene. Might use it in a boss fight if my group's party ends up with a primary caster who's really effective.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Hm. Right you are.

I'd still allow an invisible mage to counterspell a foe without breaking their invisibility, though. But only if my players came up with it on their own, or it made for a really wicked dramatic scene. Might use it in a boss fight if my group's party ends up with a primary caster who's really effective.

If I was an effective primary caster it might be a bit annoying to know that my DM was crafting encounters specifically so I couldn't do anything. Also you can stick to RAW if the counterspeller knows Greater Invisibility.

[Cyanic]

I would view counterspelling as a form of attack, and thus drop the invis.

[Nero24200]

Given that counterspelling is really a defensive action more than anything else, I'd say it doesn't break invisability, regardless of which spells you use to counterspell.

Saying it does can cause other problems as well, like would your ring of counterspells being activated also remove your invisabiity even though you're not acting?

[Foryn Gilnith]

If I was an effective primary caster

If you're an "effective" primary caster you're the MVP of the party, at the very least. If you're an effective primary caster and counterspells, of all things, are inhibiting you, then...

[Myrmex]

If I was an effective primary caster it might be a bit annoying to know that my DM was crafting encounters specifically so I couldn't do anything. Also you can stick to RAW if the counterspeller knows Greater Invisibility.

Yeah, I would stick with using Greater Invisibility. Players who like to play effective wizards tend to be a little on the RAWtard of things, and that would probably upset them.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Given that counterspelling is really a defensive action more than anything else, I'd say it doesn't break invisability, regardless of which spells you use to counterspell.

Saying it does can cause other problems as well, like would your ring of counterspells being activated also remove your invisabiity even though you're not acting?

I wouldn't call readying an action and targeting a specific spellcaster to render his spells useless a 'defensive action.' Also, I see how Ring of Counterspells can get confusing, but the problem is with the ring's poor (passive) wording, not with the clear rulings of the counterspell and invisibility.

should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part.

Emphasis mine. The spell "is immediately countered" ... by the caster or by the ring? If the ring is doing all the work then the wearer has not targeted anyone, has not made an attack, and therefore doesn't break invisibility. That's how I'd rule it, but RAW is unclear in this item's description.

Edit: saw Foryn's post

If you're an "effective" primary caster you're the MVP of the party, at the very least. If you're an effective primary caster and counterspells, of all things, are inhibiting you, then...

Any partially-optimized wizard is going to be effective without being a paranoid insta-winzard. You take someone who preps the usual party buffs and battlefield control but goes no further and stick him in a room with a Greater Invisibility'd counterspell-focused sorcerer whose only goal is to stop him, and he won't be able to do much of anything. He can't find the sorcerer without casting a spell to locate him. He can't react to the counterspell without having cheesy immediate reaction garbage that players of "effective" casters don't necessarily have the stomach to memorize (until after such an encounter). He's not going to be doing anything except trading actions with a CR=ECL foe during the fight. Maybe he'll be able to throw off a few quickened spells, but that's it. And even if he does deal with it, it shows that the DM is creating foes specifically designed to stop that one player, which sort of breaks immersion for me.

Also, as you pointed out, the truly overpowered casters that this strategy is meant to inhibit do have tactics to overcome such shenanigans.

[drebb]

Oh wow. See, I've been playing a beguiler that hangs on the ceiling, stays invisible, and just casts things that *fark* with the baddies.

But upon closer inspection, I have to be careful not to include enemies IN the radius of my solid fog when I cast it, or it becomes a hostile action. As for casting on my teammates, or even the corridor between them and us, that's as harmless as a mayfly.

However, the vote seems to sway in the direction of counterspelling not being directly hostile, either. A totally defensive action, by it's very nature, in fact. So I'm going to have a lot of fun making their spells fizzle. >:)

Of course, this will only work until the monsters start having true seeing. (Eff you, demons.) Then I'm going to have to rely on clever positioning, and my ridiculous hide check.