3.5e invisibility and collatoral damage

[taltamir]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Does this mean that if a wizard is fighting an enemy in a densely populated city, he can surround  and enemy with walls of fire, cloudkill, etc. and all the bystanders being killed do NOT break invisibility because they aren't enemies?

[FlaminCows]

Do you have a Dungeon Master's Guide nearby? Go get it. I'll wait.

Got it now? This is what you should do:

(click to show/hide)

Take that book and slap it across your face. That will give you a close approximation of the in-game effect of this method of rules interpretation.

If the character is willing to casually kill the bystanders, then they become his foes in his perceptions as soon as he decides to do that. Otherwise the wizard could just say "You are not my real enemy anyway" and then cast Disintegrate on whoever it is.

[taltamir]

It isn't MY plan. I was arguing against it being allowed. But when I looked up the actual rules I noticed that they appear to explicitly support their position.

Their specific plan he made was to throw a cloudkill 10' above an enemy's head and let it drop down on them without breaking the invisibility spell. My counter argument was that it would hit bystanders in second story houses. Bystanders he probably didn't even see. (although he DOES see the bystanders standing around his target on the street and doesn't care if they get hit, just as long as he remains invisible)

[linklord231]

Glossing right over whether bystanders count as friends or foes, your counterargument doesn't hold water because cloudkill would not penetrate walls, which it would have to do in order to affect people in 2nd story buildings. 

[X-Codes]

Glossing right over whether bystanders count as friends or foes, your counterargument doesn't hold water because cloudkill would not penetrate walls, which it would have to do in order to affect people in 2nd story buildings.

D&D setting houses have second-story windows that do not close air-tight.  At best they have shutters.  Like pretty much every form of low-income period housing.

That said, I'm not sure Cloudkill would actually drop down onto the targets.  What's more, the Wizard knows perfectly well that the cloud is going to move.

Ultimately, as a DM I'd tell the guy that if he makes a good argument, he can play an Evil wizard and *maybe* keep his invisibility.

[taltamir]

Glossing right over whether bystanders count as friends or foes, your counterargument doesn't hold water because cloudkill would not penetrate walls, which it would have to do in order to affect people in 2nd story buildings. 

he said the same, I countered with windows.

That said, I'm not sure Cloudkill would actually drop down onto the targets.

Cloudkill states

Unlike a fog cloud, the cloudkill moves away from you at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground.

Figure out the cloud’s new spread each round based on its new point of origin, which is 10 feet farther away from the point of origin where you cast the spell.

Because the vapors are heavier than air, they sink to the lowest level of the land, even pouring down den or sinkhole openings. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can it be cast underwater.

as for the other points

What's more, the Wizard knows perfectly well that the cloud is going to move.

That is a very good point, however the invisibility description explicitly states indirect attacks are allowed, even giving an example of cutting a rope bridge an enemy stands on. It seems pretty explicit.

Ultimately, as a DM I'd tell the guy that if he makes a good argument, he can play an Evil wizard and *maybe* keep his invisibility.

Sounds like a good ruling, but what would constitute a good enough argument here?

[ketaro]

"... an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe..."

So how does this get missed? It's the very first line of what breaks invisiblity in your quote of the spell. Because there is no counter argument to that single bolded part when talking about throwing AoEs around while using Invisibility.

Now, Cloudkill is also a level higher spell than Greater Invisibility so why is the wizard not using that to simply ignore any point about breaking invisibility?

Edit: A bit more ambiguous is the point of blowing up innocent bystanders while Invisibility is in effect. Pretty much anyone becomes your enemy once you start doing damage or other offensive actions and spells against them. That's just common sense.

[linklord231]

The initial casting doesn't include a foe in its area. After it is cast, it becomes an indirect attack as the cloud naturally drifts downward.

[ketaro]

It has nothing to do with the initial casting. If the spell you cast will include a foe in it's area or effect while the spell you cast is in effect, you're attacking that foe and it's breaking your invisibility.

There can not seriously be any way around this.

That's akin to the Cloudkill not being your spell anymore after you cast it.

[X-Codes]

The initial casting doesn't include a foe in its area. After it is cast, it becomes an indirect attack as the cloud naturally drifts downward.

Assuming the cloud naturally drifts downwards.  The rules only state that the cloud moves horizontally, not vertically.

[linklord231]

The initial casting doesn't include a foe in its area. After it is cast, it becomes an indirect attack as the cloud naturally drifts downward.

Assuming the cloud naturally drifts downwards.  The rules only state that the cloud moves horizontally, not vertically.

Because the vapors are heavier than air, they sink to the lowest level of the land, even pouring down den or sinkhole openings.

It has nothing to do with the initial casting. If the spell you cast will include a foe in it's area or effect while the spell you cast is in effect, you're attacking that foe and it's breaking your invisibility.

That's reading more in to the rules than what is actually stated. 

You cast a spell.  Does it target a foe?  Does it include a foe in it's area of effect?  If the answer to both of those questions is no, you're still invisible.  What happens 2 turns later is irrelevant. 

[ketaro]

That's reading more in to the rules than what is actually stated. 

You cast a spell.  Does it target a foe?  Does it include a foe in it's area of effect?  If the answer to both of those questions is no, you're still invisible.  What happens 2 turns later is irrelevant.

And that is not even reading into the rules at all.

If your Cloud descends onto a foe, you're deemed to them be attacking them and that breaks your invisibility. It doesn't matter if that happens on the 1st round or the 2nd or the 3rd. But when it does, it'll break it.

[linklord231]

If your Cloud descends onto a foe, you're deemed to them be attacking them and that breaks your invisibility. It doesn't matter if that happens on the 1st round or the 2nd or the 3rd. But when it does, it'll break it.

Replace "Cloudkill" with "Summoned Monster" and your argument does not substantially change, and yet we have an example of something that explicitly does not break invisibility. 


Interestingly though, I found a different reason why it won't work - you can't create a Cloudkill in midair.  It's a Conjuration (Creation) spell, which means it cannot appear floating in empty space.  You could, however, create a Cloudkill on the ground and have it roll towards the foe for the same effect. 

[ketaro]

It's too bad the topic isn't Summoned Monster or that could work.

Summoned Monster is neither the subject (the invisible person) attacking a foe nor is the foe within the area or effect of Summoned Monster as the only effect of Summoned Monster is summoning a monster, not doing AoE damage.

[linklord231]

Casting a Cloudkill with no enemies in its area is not the subject attacking a foe nor is there a foe in its area or effect.  If an enemy happens to blunder in to your Cloudkill, that's his own problem. 

You are claiming that Invisibility continues to care about whether your actions might be considered an "attack," even once you've finished acting.  I am claiming that this is not the case.  Otherwise, the Detect Magic that you Permanencied on yourself 6 months ago will break your Invisibility as soon as you look at an enemy, because you've included him in an area of effect. 

[ketaro]

Sigh, whatever. It's not my decision if people want to violate intent simply for optimization purposes *shrugs*.

[spacemonkey555]

Casting a Cloudkill with no enemies in its area is not the subject attacking a foe nor is there a foe in its area or effect.  If an enemy happens to blunder in to your Cloudkill, that's his own problem. 

You are claiming that Invisibility continues to care about whether your actions might be considered an "attack," even once you've finished acting.  I am claiming that this is not the case.  Otherwise, the Detect Magic that you Permanencied on yourself 6 months ago will break your Invisibility as soon as you look at an enemy, because you've included him in an area of effect.

Slippery slope fallacy. RPG rules do in fact suck, and that often leads to strange and unintended consequences. If that wasn't the case this site would be much less interesting.

[phaedrusxy]

I'm actually kind of on the fence on this one. Let me give an example that is pretty similar:

I make a Permanent (Invisible spell) Wall of Fire, then years later while I'm on another plane of existence, some hapless fool blunders into it. I happen to be Invisible at the time. Is my Invisibility canceled? I think clearly in this case it is not, but fundamentally this isn't actually very different at all than with the Cloudkill situation described. Does intent actually factor into this at all? If not, then the Cloudkill shouldn't make him become visible either. It's simpler to not factor intent. If you do, it makes things a LOT messier at the table. So I'm kind of leaning towards the invisibility not being canceled... but I still think it feels dirty.

[spacemonkey555]

I'm actually kind of on the fence on this one. Let me give an example that is pretty similar:

I make a Permanent (Invisible spell) Wall of Fire, then years later while I'm on another plane of existence, some hapless fool blunders into it. I happen to be Invisible at the time. Is my Invisibility canceled? I think clearly in this case it is not, but fundamentally this isn't actually very different at all than with the Cloudkill situation described. Does intent actually factor into this at all? If not, then the Cloudkill shouldn't make him become visible either. It's simpler to not factor intent. If you do, it makes things a LOT messier at the table. So I'm kind of leaning towards the invisibility not being canceled... but I still think it feels dirty.

It's not dirty at all, it's 100% legit. You can't perceive a person as a foe if you aren't aware of them.

[phaedrusxy]

I'm actually kind of on the fence on this one. Let me give an example that is pretty similar:

I make a Permanent (Invisible spell) Wall of Fire, then years later while I'm on another plane of existence, some hapless fool blunders into it. I happen to be Invisible at the time. Is my Invisibility canceled? I think clearly in this case it is not, but fundamentally this isn't actually very different at all than with the Cloudkill situation described. Does intent actually factor into this at all? If not, then the Cloudkill shouldn't make him become visible either. It's simpler to not factor intent. If you do, it makes things a LOT messier at the table. So I'm kind of leaning towards the invisibility not being canceled... but I still think it feels dirty.

It's not dirty at all, it's 100% legit. You can't perceive a person as a foe if you aren't aware of them.

Now wait just a minute... So you're saying you can stab your friend and remain invisible?

Edit: Another line from the spell. Friend/foe doesn't matter.

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.

So it is entirely predicated on whether something is a direct attack or not. The spell says you can trigger traps remotely (think roadside bomb with a detonator). If that doesn't break invisibility, I think it's pretty clear that someone walking into a Cloudkill wouldn't either. Neither would the spell expanding after cast to encompass them.

So yeah, I agree that the Cloudkill example given in the OP would not break invisibility (ignoring the part about not being able to summon it mid-air).