Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

So I was thinking about it and this spell removes wards from someone. It is effectively an abjuration that dispels a defense. Is this considered an attack? Would a wizard or warlock be within their rights to react to the sudden removal of their protection?

Yeah... But if you think about it... If a wizard or warlock is sneaking about invisible... and you happen to discover them red handed... It is not like your character would need an additional special reason to hit them with a big axe.

invisibility is more defensive. A dispel is offensive. At least that is how I see it. I mean by that logic seeing any spell on anyone at all ever would be considered a reason to attack...

invisibility purge is an attack, but its also highly situational as if you would be ok to retaliate for it

if you are invisible running around and you happened to run by someone who had purge, then you really cant do anything because thats your fault for even getting close to them

if you are already being hostile to someone and go invis and they counter with a purge and strip you, then you are basically consenting to pvp anyway because thats the same as using hips during a hostile confrontation and not to mention casting spells alone is consent in itself

if you are invisible sneaking around some place you shouldnt be invisible and someone sees you and runs over and strips you with purge and tells you to stop that, then thats your fault for getting caught...

but so far in two of those where you are trying to be sneaky its not known if they know what you intended so attacking is probably not a good idea depending where you are - the first one with a random person then probably not, the second with a guard maybe

Blackman D wrote:invisibility purge is an attack, but its also highly situational as if you would be ok to retaliate for it

if you are invisible running around and you happened to run by someone who had purge, then you really cant do anything because thats your fault for even getting close to them

if you are already being hostile to someone and go invis and they counter with a purge and strip you, then you are basically consenting to pvp anyway because thats the same as using hips during a hostile confrontation and not to mention casting spells alone is consent in itself

if you are invisible sneaking around some place you shouldnt be invisible and someone sees you and runs over and strips you with purge and tells you to stop that, then thats your fault for getting caught...

but so far in two of those where you are trying to be sneaky its not known if they know what you intended so attacking is probably not a good idea depending where you are - the first one with a random person then probably not, the second with a guard maybe

Basically. HDMs can say other wise if they like as BMD hit the nail on the head here in my view. Though if your curious, basically you the invisible person for the most part in these cases have consented automatically to pvp, while the other side has not. Lesson of the day, run around invis to avoid monsters, sure. Doing so around crowded nervous player characters for really any reason is probably a bad idea.

In case you where wondering as well. Say you get an IC argument with Bob. You figure ... "what ever Bob your stupid im going to leave now" and you then *cast invisibility* you automaticly now consent to PVP and Bob can not only Purge you.. he can flat out kill you. When you walk away do not go casting. Even a "What ever Bob, your stupid im leaving now" and *as I walk away I cast sending* .. bob can slag you there too.

So in the end.. dont walk into invisibility purge. What where you doing that close to them =P

Invisibility cannot be considered a defensive spell if you are heading towards someone. Being defensive means avoiding them. The invisible player is the one who has the benefit of sight and can therefore avoid encounters, not the person with the purge. A purge in this case is considered defensive when being approached by anything invisible.

So anyone who is invisible, hipsing, or sneaking are autoconsenting to pvp. Stripping them of this is initiating it. Got it.

Now if I see someone with another defensive war up such as stoneskin is that also autoconsenting? What makes invisibility special?

I think you misunderstood. Hips or invisible is auto consent. Stepping someone of it pro actively such as with a dispel or casting any spell at the hidden/ invisible character is initiating. Invisibility purge is not a targeted spell at the invisible character and thus the one with the spell still is protected by the rp out rule.

Laughingman wrote:Now if I see someone with another defensive war up such as stoneskin is that also autoconsenting? What makes invisibility special?

Nope, not how it works. Invisibility/ hips can be perceived with ill intent and has offensive uses (sneak attack, quickened spells for ambush, spying, and the like). Stoneskin is purely a protection from attack and has no offensive use.

chad878262 wrote: Nope, not how it works. Invisibility/ hips can be perceived with ill intent and has offensive uses (sneak attack, quickened spells for ambush, spying, and the like). Stoneskin is purely a protection from attack and has no offensive use.

Ok lets take any spell that is not a protection (flame weapon, greater magic weapon, haste, etc) Are they autoconsent too?(talking about situation when someone has those spells on them - not actively casts them while having hostile conversation)

If not then again question is - what makes invisibility special?

Would depend on the situation. If you see someone warding up at an entry point to a dangerous area, including invisibility it would be poor form to immediately attack.

Okay so KOS-ing someone just because he has invisibility makes same sense as when KOS-ing someone because he has haste/flame weapon/any offensive spell - got it... so pretty much makes no sense at all the way I see it in most situations.

Nobody said that Mork.

Mork wrote:Okay so KOS-ing someone just because he has invisibility makes same sense as when KOS-ing someone because he has haste/flame weapon/any offensive spell - got it... so pretty much makes no sense at all the way I see it in most situations.

There is no KOSing when being invisible nor when having the invisibility purged. If the RP from both sides leads to pvp fine, go for it no matter which side you are on ( the invisible or the one purging ) however there is absolutely no reason to use the spell system as an excuse to pvp.

YourMoveHolyMan wrote:Nobody said that Mork.

chad878262 wrote: Hips or invisible is auto consent.

Okay perhaps not KOS but auto consent - either makes no sense

Having a greataxe on the back can be perceived with ill intent and has offensive uses - does that too mean auto-consent?

Mork wrote:

YourMoveHolyMan wrote:Nobody said that Mork.

chad878262 wrote: Hips or invisible is auto consent.

Okay perhaps not KOS but auto consent - either makes no sense

Having a greataxe on the back can be perceived with ill intent and has offensive uses - does that too mean auto-consent?

There is no auto consent either.

In a few words, there is no intention to use the system mechanics as an excuse to initiate PvP. Even if you are invisible, even if you have your invisibility purged, the pvp should only be initiated after RP.