An "invisible" mistake - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

An "invisible" mistake

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Jan 08, 2004 5:28:04 Ever tried making your character invisible? That’s for great fun especially for social interactions and sneaking. However in my opinion the whole spell (its lesser version) is deceiving mother spell-nature in a tricky way.

Spells in general have their own criteria in order to function normally, be negated, suppressed etc. obeying to a spell code which mother spell-nature defines despite the fact of disobeying physical laws. "Protection from evil prevents bodily contact from summoned creatures” that’s quite a clear statement where none can disagree with its reliability, it just makes sense allowing no misconceptions.

Invisibility though is quite a troublesome spell. It defines that a character can remain invisible as long as he doesn't directly attacks or aims a spell on a foe. And from here on chaos unfolds.

-Manyx(my cat familiar):Brrrr! If protection from chaos is such a reliable spell do you have it prepared?

-Today I preferred posting this than reading my books...excuse me Manyx!

So who can tell me what can be stated as a direct attack and what can’t? Most would say that a direct attack is something like striking with a weapon, and I can respond that while firing with a bow counts as a direct attack, unleashing a boulder, so that it can roll over the unwary adventurers, climbing up a narrow trail does not count as one. And why is that?! While unleashing a boulder doesn't need an attack roll does it mean that it's an "indirect" attack?! Many people are tricked by facts such as size, distance, activation methods etc. Notice that "activating" a crossbow wielded by you is a silly thing but activating an arrow trap is a more complex one. From my side both attacks count as direct attacks left alone the complexity of the procedure. Also notice that a rock hurled by a hill giant counts as a direct attack but a rock fired by a catapult doesn't as a catapult can be theoretically considered as a part of a falling block trap. The spell's description states that "remotely" activating a trap doesn't end the spell. So if Lidda pulls the triggering lever with a rope tied on it the attack would not count as a direct one.....be serious.......why shouldn't I tie ropes on my crossbow's trigger and fire likewise?

Another feature of the invisibility spell is that "attacking" an ally doesn't end the spell but....

-Manyx: I haven't seen you once having attacked your allies...

-That's a different matter. To end what I was saying...but attacking a foe does so. So who can be a foe? Would it be one that you encounter by surprise or have met him before and left unsolved matters? Would it be one that would warn you (or at least your allies as in most cases he couldn't spot you) before an immediate attack? What if, the mentally dominated Mialee turns invisible and is directed to cast magic missile on her allies? Would they count as foes for the purpose?(and in turn end the spell?)
Moreover I've got a trickier example that would contradict the final misconception of the spell. The spell's discreption states that attacking an unattended object doesn't end the spell. So Mialee and Lidda are hunted down towards a chasm by a group of hill giants. By the time they reach the rift they realize that the opposite side is about 20 ft away so they can't jump over the chasm. Mialee being invisible spots a big tree on the opposite side and decides to put all her efforts to try to throw her rope on a branch so it could tie somehow and let them climb it.

-Manyx: But use rope isn't a class skill for wizards!

-I know Manyx! That's why I said PUT ALL HER EFFORTS! So Mialee gives Lidda a shout about her plan (Lidda can't see her) and orders her to keep the giants distracted for as long as she can.

-Manyx: Hard task for Lidda...

-That's just an example...Mialee also has some scrolls of polymorph any object in her scroll case but...try to keep tense! Mialee at last reaches the tree with her rope and casting "animate rope" makes it tied on a big branch!
However a hill giant catches Lidda and while grappling,the hill giant ties her with his rope. Mialee decides that it's too late to save Lidda and jumps off the rift holding tightly her rope(the giants might have spotted the rope extending from her so it's not time for long-thinking).Finally the hill giant having tied Lidda drinks a potion of invisibility, grabs the untied end of his rope and starts swirling her to give a fancy end in her life while his friends are watching but beware!.....The tree that Mialee is climbing up to turns out to be a nasty treant that senses this "extra weight" and tries to cut off the rope tickling it.

And here my questions come! Will the hill giant become visible after letting his rope loose? (Lidda would definitely suffer direct damage though the giant didn't make a direct attack nor rolled for one...apart from a perform check if you like).

Would Mialee have become visible when she threw her rope on the treant? As it was then considered (for her) an object and she made a direct touch attack against it. OR would Mialee become visible when she realizes that the tree is actually a treant so it turns out to be a foe? (and therefore been attacked before)

-Manyx:You didn't mention that the treant noticed Mialee, it only felt a tickle.

-I said that it was a nasty treant and let me add really clever! The treant might have noticed that an invisible character was climbing it up and have groaned: "Who may be you that disturbs my sleep?! Now I'll show you!" Then the treant would de a foe for sure or maybe Mialee doesn't yet perceive the treant as a foe so she may retain being invisible.

Note: Both the giant's and Mialee's case may be subject to ending the spells.

From what I have learned from the game regarding spells,that is all about game balance, but when some criteria aren't clearly fulfilled then it's no worth at all!

Did I confuse you? Are you so sure about some answers that would still let you use invisibility as it is? As for me and Manyx...well...we just use its greater version only! :D
#2
zombiegleemax
Jan 12, 2004 11:37:34 Invisibility is a tricky spell. That whole part about 'the characters perceptions' is subject to a great deal of debate. As with all tricky spells its solely up to the DM to determine how they actually work.

I would rule thusly...

1. I'd allow the Giant to retain his invisibility for a simple throw. Sure, Lidda will take some damage from the landing, but its probably preferable to being 'Coup De Gras' smashed. Throwing a bound character doesn't require an attack roll and could be considered 'indirect damage.'

2. Mialee is not hindering the treant nor damaging it with the rope and thus stays invisible. The rope would have to negatively effect the Treant for the spell to end.

Where the spell truly gets tricky is with the 'trap' idea. Firing a crossbow requires a 'personal' attack roll by the character. Pushing the button on the deathsmasher Hall trap 2000 doesn't. Rolling a boulder down on the scout party requires a 'personal' attack roll. Pulling the pin on the avalanche trap doesn't. By 'personal' I mean the attack and damage originates from the invisible characters square and is initiated by the character.

Pulling a string attached to the trigger on your heavy crossbow can be handled several ways.

1. If the crossbow is still in your hands, I would rule that to still be a personal attack. (I'd also give it a -2 for odd behavior.)

2. If the crossbow is sitting on a nearby table, I'd rule it a trap. The character would use the Craft (trapmaking) skill, say DC15 (Crossbows aren't on hair-triggers and setting it up so the weapon stays pointed at the door when you yank the string aint necessarily easy). Since the trap is of simple design I'd allow the character an untrained attempt to set it up and of course it wouldn't cost much past the string. Now the crossbow becomes a separate source of attack and the character can retain his/her invisibility. I'd tie the attack bonus into the skill check, maybe giving it a +2 per point above 15, max being the BAB of the character.

As I said, its very much subject to DM interpretation. I'd be interested in continuing this thread with other suggestions. I always strive for simplicity in my rulings and I will admit to requiring some complex mechanics to handle this spell.
#3
zombiegleemax
Jan 28, 2004 9:42:45 I have thought about this one for several times, arriving at the conclusion that there just is no way you can grant the invisibility spell an 'interaction ability' of the same simplicity as the quoted Protection against evil spell, just pushing away what it doesn't like. The Protection spell can be thought of as some tiny entity of its own, sitting there and watching the world, or some very limited aspect of it, and upon very clearly distinguished triggers get up to act itself, namely pushing back said evil thingy.

This view, as was well pointed out by Thermanshs' example, just doesn't hold with Invisibility. There just is no simple way of determining what is meant as an attack and what not by just looking at the world out there.

The way out of this, if one still wants to use the spell and not confine oneself to the improved version, seems to me to allow the spell to glimpse more than just the world. What is meant as an attack is to the most part determined by whether the attacker sees himself as such, or if he sees himself as manipulating the world in some way that more or less accidentally leads to harm someone else.

Now one might ask what we have won, because we just shifted the problem from "what is an attack" to "what do I perceive as an attack". But this "I", one should not forget, is the PC in question, and this is a part of the world the corresponding player has direct and unlimited access to, while the rest of the world might be vague and hazy even to the DM.

So what do I perceive as an attack? While this, being essentially a question of opinion of one PC, might be left to the discretion of a mature player himself, who thus has to state whether his Character becomes visible or not himself, is still a tricky one and even in that case some guidelines might be appropriate. The rules ask for a direct attack to end the invisibility. To qualify as a direct attack an action must fulfill two points:

1. It must be an attack
This means that the ultimate aim of this specific action is to do harm to a subject that is considered an enemy by the PC.

2. It must be direct
A direct attack has no mediators. The only objects involved are the PC and the enemy, including their equipment. A soon as some props of the surrounding area are used, the attack is not considered direct.

What does that do to our poor sleepless treant scene?

- The Hill Giant does not become visible. He wanted to harm Lidda, but he did not strike her directly

- Mialee does not become visible when throwing the rope. She clearly does not intend to harm the treant.

- Nor does she when she realizes it's a treant, for obvious reasons

- Anyone kicking a boulder down a slope to hit somebody does not become visible, as he does not attack his enemy directly

Does this help? I hope so. Does this clear out all possible questions once and for all? Certainly not. This is, inherently, a vague problem and as such, I believe, impossible to define sharply and to all ends. One could still make up examples like "if that guy on the slope takes a special magical Exploding Boulder of Doom(TM) from his backpack, places it on the ground, and then kicks it down to deliver death, what then?" You can always make up examples to thwart and fall out of every set of rules you make. but I believe that this one should be a reasonable guide to virtually all circumstances that arise naturally in a gaming world, even in the Revenge the Slumbering Treant-adventure ;)
#4
zombiegleemax
Jan 31, 2004 0:14:55 The way I always saw it, and the way I rule it in my games, is if you use an attack that could in reality plausibly give away your position, then the spell ends. Thus, while shooting a crossbow you are at the location from which the bolt came, giving the ability to trace where you are, which means the spell ends. However, the trap-setting off would not reveal the location of the trapper, and thus does not end the spell. That’s how I'd deal with the crossbow vs trap thing, but for the rest: Mialee stays invisible with the rope on the treant. It isn’t an attack, and the Giant stays invisible with swinging Lidda unless he throws her at something to harm it.
#5
zombiegleemax
Feb 11, 2004 5:20:52
Originally posted by PaladinKD
Invisibility is a tricky spell. That whole part about 'the characters perceptions' is subject to a great deal of debate. As with all tricky spells its solely up to the DM to determine how they actually work.

I would rule thusly...

1. I'd allow the Giant to retain his invisibility for a simple throw. Sure, Lidda will take some damage from the landing, but its probably preferable to being 'Coup De Gras' smashed. Throwing a bound character doesn't require an attack roll and could be considered 'indirect damage.'

The spell's description states directly attacking, not directly "damaging" a "foe".

Originally posted by PaladinKD
2. Mialee is not hindering the treant nor damaging it with the rope and thus stays invisible. The rope would have to negatively effect the Treant for the spell to end.

-Manyx: The spell's description also points up the attack part. Whether finally harming your target is a different matter.

Originally posted by PaladinKD
Where the spell truly gets tricky is with the 'trap' idea. Firing a crossbow requires a 'personal' attack roll by the character. Pushing the button on the deathsmasher Hall trap 2000 doesn't. Rolling a boulder down on the scout party requires a 'personal' attack roll. Pulling the pin on the avalanche trap doesn't. By 'personal' I mean the attack and damage originates from the invisible characters square and is initiated by the character.

-I didn't say that the trap requires the character to roll the boulder himself, he can instead release it and the boulder may roll on rails, so....no attack roll is needed.

-Manyx: However YOU seem to have fallen in the spell's trap. As we described above, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCEDURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIRECTNESS OF THE ATTACK .Check that both firing with a crossbow/bow count as direct attacks while a crossbow is a much more complex "device".

Originally posted by PaladinKD
Pulling a string attached to the trigger on your heavy crossbow can be handled several ways.

1. If the crossbow is still in your hands, I would rule that to still be a personal attack. (I'd also give it a -2 for odd behavior.)

2. If the crossbow is sitting on a nearby table, I'd rule it a trap. The character would use the Craft (trapmaking) skill, say DC15 (Crossbows aren't on hair-triggers and setting it up so the weapon stays pointed at the door when you yank the string ain’t necessarily easy). Since the trap is of simple design I'd allow the character an untrained attempt to set it up and of course it wouldn't cost much past the string. Now the crossbow becomes a separate source of attack and the character can retain his/her invisibility. I'd tie the attack bonus into the skill check, maybe giving it a +2 per point above 15, max being the BAB of the character.

-That is quite similar with a rogue cutting the triggering ropes of a catapult isn't it?
-Manyx: It seems so....
-But you didn't notice that a catapult used by a titan functions similarly like a crossbow wielded by a halfling. Here comes the size and distance misconceptions I was talking about.

Please try not to misunderstand me as I don't try to blame you for all this confusion.

-To put an end to this possibly never-ending debate I'll tell you that I think we missed my main point.
-Manyx: Which is.....
-Which is a spell's functioning criteria. Common players can easily tell whether a character attacked or didn't. But mother spell-nature can't. Because in real life no rolls are made for attacks and people's perceptions aren't fixed. What if Mialee just for a second expected that the treant might help her climb it up, but then when she heard its groan changed her mind? Would this cause her to turn visible? Also what's so special about attacks? They're combat maneuvers just like defending yourself might be. They altogether consist physical performances which mother spell-nature can't define as an "attack," distracting a foe (aid another action)"... *

-Manyx: Hey, come on! How can you aid another while being invisible? You can't distract a foe like this! All you can do is confuse him!

-So hoping to fulfill Manyx's stupid questionnaire we'll assume that the subject foe has the true sight spell cast on him right?!

-Manyx: Hmmm...
-* ...or the chopping of a tree as different maneuvers. The only difference is encountered in game terms when low level wizards, sorcerers, etc. don't get overpowered by a single spell. Who can tell me the difference between an invisible monk at his exercising time, hitting all but pure air(improving his swiftness),and an invisible monk trying to hit a foe but always missing him (not just failing on his attack rolls but really missing his target).The result equals the same though the second monk would be subject to ending the spell.

-Manyx: And what can be considered as a satisfactory enough criterion in this purpose?
-I don't know...maybe violent motion could be the key to ending the spell. That could justify the melee strikes as violent motion examples and result in turning visible. But thereafter someone might ask. What if putting a knife slowly in a creature's body. What's a motion's maximum "acceptable" swiftness?

Also firing with bows, crossbows, etc. doesn't require violent motion and wouldn't break the spell. Other performances that could end the spell might be: running, jumping, etc. This criterion I think is more specific despite the fact that the whole spell is changing.

So let' get real here and try to view all these rolls, spells and maneuvers in their actual representation/role.
-Manyx: Despite it won't cost you much if you just "ignored" invisibility's lesser version.
-Anyway I'm open to further discussion of this topic.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Jan 08, 2004 5:28:04	Ever tried making your character invisible? That’s for great fun especially for social interactions and sneaking. However in my opinion the whole spell (its lesser version) is deceiving mother spell-nature in a tricky way. Spells in general have their own criteria in order to function normally, be negated, suppressed etc. obeying to a spell code which mother spell-nature defines despite the fact of disobeying physical laws. "Protection from evil prevents bodily contact from summoned creatures” that’s quite a clear statement where none can disagree with its reliability, it just makes sense allowing no misconceptions. Invisibility though is quite a troublesome spell. It defines that a character can remain invisible as long as he doesn't directly attacks or aims a spell on a foe. And from here on chaos unfolds. -Manyx(my cat familiar):Brrrr! If protection from chaos is such a reliable spell do you have it prepared? -Today I preferred posting this than reading my books...excuse me Manyx! So who can tell me what can be stated as a direct attack and what can’t? Most would say that a direct attack is something like striking with a weapon, and I can respond that while firing with a bow counts as a direct attack, unleashing a boulder, so that it can roll over the unwary adventurers, climbing up a narrow trail does not count as one. And why is that?! While unleashing a boulder doesn't need an attack roll does it mean that it's an "indirect" attack?! Many people are tricked by facts such as size, distance, activation methods etc. Notice that "activating" a crossbow wielded by you is a silly thing but activating an arrow trap is a more complex one. From my side both attacks count as direct attacks left alone the complexity of the procedure. Also notice that a rock hurled by a hill giant counts as a direct attack but a rock fired by a catapult doesn't as a catapult can be theoretically considered as a part of a falling block trap. The spell's description states that "remotely" activating a trap doesn't end the spell. So if Lidda pulls the triggering lever with a rope tied on it the attack would not count as a direct one.....be serious.......why shouldn't I tie ropes on my crossbow's trigger and fire likewise? Another feature of the invisibility spell is that "attacking" an ally doesn't end the spell but.... -Manyx: I haven't seen you once having attacked your allies... -That's a different matter. To end what I was saying...but attacking a foe does so. So who can be a foe? Would it be one that you encounter by surprise or have met him before and left unsolved matters? Would it be one that would warn you (or at least your allies as in most cases he couldn't spot you) before an immediate attack? What if, the mentally dominated Mialee turns invisible and is directed to cast magic missile on her allies? Would they count as foes for the purpose?(and in turn end the spell?) Moreover I've got a trickier example that would contradict the final misconception of the spell. The spell's discreption states that attacking an unattended object doesn't end the spell. So Mialee and Lidda are hunted down towards a chasm by a group of hill giants. By the time they reach the rift they realize that the opposite side is about 20 ft away so they can't jump over the chasm. Mialee being invisible spots a big tree on the opposite side and decides to put all her efforts to try to throw her rope on a branch so it could tie somehow and let them climb it. -Manyx: But use rope isn't a class skill for wizards! -I know Manyx! That's why I said PUT ALL HER EFFORTS! So Mialee gives Lidda a shout about her plan (Lidda can't see her) and orders her to keep the giants distracted for as long as she can. -Manyx: Hard task for Lidda... -That's just an example...Mialee also has some scrolls of polymorph any object in her scroll case but...try to keep tense! Mialee at last reaches the tree with her rope and casting "animate rope" makes it tied on a big branch! However a hill giant catches Lidda and while grappling,the hill giant ties her with his rope. Mialee decides that it's too late to save Lidda and jumps off the rift holding tightly her rope(the giants might have spotted the rope extending from her so it's not time for long-thinking).Finally the hill giant having tied Lidda drinks a potion of invisibility, grabs the untied end of his rope and starts swirling her to give a fancy end in her life while his friends are watching but beware!.....The tree that Mialee is climbing up to turns out to be a nasty treant that senses this "extra weight" and tries to cut off the rope tickling it. And here my questions come! Will the hill giant become visible after letting his rope loose? (Lidda would definitely suffer direct damage though the giant didn't make a direct attack nor rolled for one...apart from a perform check if you like). Would Mialee have become visible when she threw her rope on the treant? As it was then considered (for her) an object and she made a direct touch attack against it. OR would Mialee become visible when she realizes that the tree is actually a treant so it turns out to be a foe? (and therefore been attacked before) -Manyx:You didn't mention that the treant noticed Mialee, it only felt a tickle. -I said that it was a nasty treant and let me add really clever! The treant might have noticed that an invisible character was climbing it up and have groaned: "Who may be you that disturbs my sleep?! Now I'll show you!" Then the treant would de a foe for sure or maybe Mialee doesn't yet perceive the treant as a foe so she may retain being invisible. Note: Both the giant's and Mialee's case may be subject to ending the spells. From what I have learned from the game regarding spells,that is all about game balance, but when some criteria aren't clearly fulfilled then it's no worth at all! Did I confuse you? Are you so sure about some answers that would still let you use invisibility as it is? As for me and Manyx...well...we just use its greater version only! :D
#2 zombiegleemax Jan 12, 2004 11:37:34	Invisibility is a tricky spell. That whole part about 'the characters perceptions' is subject to a great deal of debate. As with all tricky spells its solely up to the DM to determine how they actually work. I would rule thusly... 1. I'd allow the Giant to retain his invisibility for a simple throw. Sure, Lidda will take some damage from the landing, but its probably preferable to being 'Coup De Gras' smashed. Throwing a bound character doesn't require an attack roll and could be considered 'indirect damage.' 2. Mialee is not hindering the treant nor damaging it with the rope and thus stays invisible. The rope would have to negatively effect the Treant for the spell to end. Where the spell truly gets tricky is with the 'trap' idea. Firing a crossbow requires a 'personal' attack roll by the character. Pushing the button on the deathsmasher Hall trap 2000 doesn't. Rolling a boulder down on the scout party requires a 'personal' attack roll. Pulling the pin on the avalanche trap doesn't. By 'personal' I mean the attack and damage originates from the invisible characters square and is initiated by the character. Pulling a string attached to the trigger on your heavy crossbow can be handled several ways. 1. If the crossbow is still in your hands, I would rule that to still be a personal attack. (I'd also give it a -2 for odd behavior.) 2. If the crossbow is sitting on a nearby table, I'd rule it a trap. The character would use the Craft (trapmaking) skill, say DC15 (Crossbows aren't on hair-triggers and setting it up so the weapon stays pointed at the door when you yank the string aint necessarily easy). Since the trap is of simple design I'd allow the character an untrained attempt to set it up and of course it wouldn't cost much past the string. Now the crossbow becomes a separate source of attack and the character can retain his/her invisibility. I'd tie the attack bonus into the skill check, maybe giving it a +2 per point above 15, max being the BAB of the character. As I said, its very much subject to DM interpretation. I'd be interested in continuing this thread with other suggestions. I always strive for simplicity in my rulings and I will admit to requiring some complex mechanics to handle this spell.
#3 zombiegleemax Jan 28, 2004 9:42:45	I have thought about this one for several times, arriving at the conclusion that there just is no way you can grant the invisibility spell an 'interaction ability' of the same simplicity as the quoted Protection against evil spell, just pushing away what it doesn't like. The Protection spell can be thought of as some tiny entity of its own, sitting there and watching the world, or some very limited aspect of it, and upon very clearly distinguished triggers get up to act itself, namely pushing back said evil thingy. This view, as was well pointed out by Thermanshs' example, just doesn't hold with Invisibility. There just is no simple way of determining what is meant as an attack and what not by just looking at the world out there. The way out of this, if one still wants to use the spell and not confine oneself to the improved version, seems to me to allow the spell to glimpse more than just the world. What is meant as an attack is to the most part determined by whether the attacker sees himself as such, or if he sees himself as manipulating the world in some way that more or less accidentally leads to harm someone else. Now one might ask what we have won, because we just shifted the problem from "what is an attack" to "what do I perceive as an attack". But this "I", one should not forget, is the PC in question, and this is a part of the world the corresponding player has direct and unlimited access to, while the rest of the world might be vague and hazy even to the DM. So what do I perceive as an attack? While this, being essentially a question of opinion of one PC, might be left to the discretion of a mature player himself, who thus has to state whether his Character becomes visible or not himself, is still a tricky one and even in that case some guidelines might be appropriate. The rules ask for a direct attack to end the invisibility. To qualify as a direct attack an action must fulfill two points: 1. It must be an attack This means that the ultimate aim of this specific action is to do harm to a subject that is considered an enemy by the PC. 2. It must be direct A direct attack has no mediators. The only objects involved are the PC and the enemy, including their equipment. A soon as some props of the surrounding area are used, the attack is not considered direct. What does that do to our poor sleepless treant scene? - The Hill Giant does not become visible. He wanted to harm Lidda, but he did not strike her directly - Mialee does not become visible when throwing the rope. She clearly does not intend to harm the treant. - Nor does she when she realizes it's a treant, for obvious reasons - Anyone kicking a boulder down a slope to hit somebody does not become visible, as he does not attack his enemy directly Does this help? I hope so. Does this clear out all possible questions once and for all? Certainly not. This is, inherently, a vague problem and as such, I believe, impossible to define sharply and to all ends. One could still make up examples like "if that guy on the slope takes a special magical Exploding Boulder of Doom(TM) from his backpack, places it on the ground, and then kicks it down to deliver death, what then?" You can always make up examples to thwart and fall out of every set of rules you make. but I believe that this one should be a reasonable guide to virtually all circumstances that arise naturally in a gaming world, even in the Revenge the Slumbering Treant-adventure ;)
#4 zombiegleemax Jan 31, 2004 0:14:55	The way I always saw it, and the way I rule it in my games, is if you use an attack that could in reality plausibly give away your position, then the spell ends. Thus, while shooting a crossbow you are at the location from which the bolt came, giving the ability to trace where you are, which means the spell ends. However, the trap-setting off would not reveal the location of the trapper, and thus does not end the spell. That’s how I'd deal with the crossbow vs trap thing, but for the rest: Mialee stays invisible with the rope on the treant. It isn’t an attack, and the Giant stays invisible with swinging Lidda unless he throws her at something to harm it.
#5 zombiegleemax Feb 11, 2004 5:20:52	Originally posted by PaladinKD Invisibility is a tricky spell. That whole part about 'the characters perceptions' is subject to a great deal of debate. As with all tricky spells its solely up to the DM to determine how they actually work. I would rule thusly... 1. I'd allow the Giant to retain his invisibility for a simple throw. Sure, Lidda will take some damage from the landing, but its probably preferable to being 'Coup De Gras' smashed. Throwing a bound character doesn't require an attack roll and could be considered 'indirect damage.' The spell's description states directly attacking, not directly "damaging" a "foe". Originally posted by PaladinKD 2. Mialee is not hindering the treant nor damaging it with the rope and thus stays invisible. The rope would have to negatively effect the Treant for the spell to end. -Manyx: The spell's description also points up the attack part. Whether finally harming your target is a different matter. Originally posted by PaladinKD Where the spell truly gets tricky is with the 'trap' idea. Firing a crossbow requires a 'personal' attack roll by the character. Pushing the button on the deathsmasher Hall trap 2000 doesn't. Rolling a boulder down on the scout party requires a 'personal' attack roll. Pulling the pin on the avalanche trap doesn't. By 'personal' I mean the attack and damage originates from the invisible characters square and is initiated by the character. -I didn't say that the trap requires the character to roll the boulder himself, he can instead release it and the boulder may roll on rails, so....no attack roll is needed. -Manyx: However YOU seem to have fallen in the spell's trap. As we described above, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCEDURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIRECTNESS OF THE ATTACK .Check that both firing with a crossbow/bow count as direct attacks while a crossbow is a much more complex "device". Originally posted by PaladinKD Pulling a string attached to the trigger on your heavy crossbow can be handled several ways. 1. If the crossbow is still in your hands, I would rule that to still be a personal attack. (I'd also give it a -2 for odd behavior.) 2. If the crossbow is sitting on a nearby table, I'd rule it a trap. The character would use the Craft (trapmaking) skill, say DC15 (Crossbows aren't on hair-triggers and setting it up so the weapon stays pointed at the door when you yank the string ain’t necessarily easy). Since the trap is of simple design I'd allow the character an untrained attempt to set it up and of course it wouldn't cost much past the string. Now the crossbow becomes a separate source of attack and the character can retain his/her invisibility. I'd tie the attack bonus into the skill check, maybe giving it a +2 per point above 15, max being the BAB of the character. -That is quite similar with a rogue cutting the triggering ropes of a catapult isn't it? -Manyx: It seems so.... -But you didn't notice that a catapult used by a titan functions similarly like a crossbow wielded by a halfling. Here comes the size and distance misconceptions I was talking about. Please try not to misunderstand me as I don't try to blame you for all this confusion. -To put an end to this possibly never-ending debate I'll tell you that I think we missed my main point. -Manyx: Which is..... -Which is a spell's functioning criteria. Common players can easily tell whether a character attacked or didn't. But mother spell-nature can't. Because in real life no rolls are made for attacks and people's perceptions aren't fixed. What if Mialee just for a second expected that the treant might help her climb it up, but then when she heard its groan changed her mind? Would this cause her to turn visible? Also what's so special about attacks? They're combat maneuvers just like defending yourself might be. They altogether consist physical performances which mother spell-nature can't define as an "attack," distracting a foe (aid another action)"... * -Manyx: Hey, come on! How can you aid another while being invisible? You can't distract a foe like this! All you can do is confuse him! -So hoping to fulfill Manyx's stupid questionnaire we'll assume that the subject foe has the true sight spell cast on him right?! -Manyx: Hmmm... -* ...or the chopping of a tree as different maneuvers. The only difference is encountered in game terms when low level wizards, sorcerers, etc. don't get overpowered by a single spell. Who can tell me the difference between an invisible monk at his exercising time, hitting all but pure air(improving his swiftness),and an invisible monk trying to hit a foe but always missing him (not just failing on his attack rolls but really missing his target).The result equals the same though the second monk would be subject to ending the spell. -Manyx: And what can be considered as a satisfactory enough criterion in this purpose? -I don't know...maybe violent motion could be the key to ending the spell. That could justify the melee strikes as violent motion examples and result in turning visible. But thereafter someone might ask. What if putting a knife slowly in a creature's body. What's a motion's maximum "acceptable" swiftness? Also firing with bows, crossbows, etc. doesn't require violent motion and wouldn't break the spell. Other performances that could end the spell might be: running, jumping, etc. This criterion I think is more specific despite the fact that the whole spell is changing. So let' get real here and try to view all these rolls, spells and maneuvers in their actual representation/role. -Manyx: Despite it won't cost you much if you just "ignored" invisibility's lesser version. -Anyway I'm open to further discussion of this topic.