13

My Wizard casts invisibility on himself and then would like to cast spells (ones that don't require attack rolls) from a Ring of Spell Storing.

According to developers, using a magic item to cast a spell is neither the "Use an Object" action nor the "Cast a Spell" action. According to the Invisibility spell, you become visible if you attack or cast a spell.

Does the Wizard maintain his Invisibility so long as he does not make an attack roll or break concentration when "casting" from a magic item? And if not, why? How is "casting a spell" in respect of breaking Invisibility different from "casting a spell" in respect to effects like Twinned Spell and Arcane Ward (as per the link above)?

Community
  • 1
WetNachos
  • 199
  • 1
  • 5

2 Answers2

23

The wording for Invisibility is (PHB p.254):

The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

And the Ring of Spell Storing is (DMG p.192):

While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.

and

... but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

If you use the ring you "cast a spell". If you are under an Invisibility spell when you do this, it ends.

Conflating this with a particular type of action is a furphy; you do not need the Cast a Spell or Use an Item action to cast a spell: among other things a spell can be cast using a bonus action or a reaction. Using the ring requires the same action as the original spell requires: an action, a reaction or a longer period. Notwithstanding, casting the spell is casting a spell as far as invisibility is concerned.

Dale M
  • 210,673
  • 42
  • 528
  • 889
  • 1
    Yeah: note that it's not the Cast a Spell action that ends invisibility, it's the in-game act of casting a spell. – SevenSidedDie Dec 04 '15 at 04:45
  • 1
    @SevenSidedDie but can't you make the same argument for all the other things in the related question? What makes Twinned Spell, for instance, usable only on spells cast with the Cast a Spell action but makes Invisibility break on all spells cast? While I agree this is probably how it was intended, some clarification as to how this is different to what the developers have previously stated would make for a more complete answer. Especially since the question seems to be asking for that exact clarification. – DaFluid Dec 04 '15 at 07:56
  • @DaFluid good question, why not ask it? – Dale M Dec 04 '15 at 10:15
  • 1
    While I side with this answer, my player's real question is why should they lose class benefits from this type of casting AND suffer potential consequences of the casting? They feel it should be one or the other. You gain all benefits and consequences or none at all. – WetNachos Dec 04 '15 at 12:54
  • @DaleM Because I think it's a part of this question already (and WetNachos's comment verifies that), but I'll propose an edit to the question that should make it clear. – DaFluid Dec 04 '15 at 14:29
  • @DaFluid no, it isn't. The aim of se is very clear: each question should be discrete and self-contained, your edit is neither. "What happens if ..." and "Why is that different from ..." are 2 questions. Also, without the hyperlink and my answer your edit makes no sense - either could be deleted in the future, making the question not self-contained. AFAIK there is no fee char for posting quedtions . – Dale M Dec 04 '15 at 19:42
  • @WetNachos - He doesn't lose class benifits... A barbarian is strong, using that strength to lift a boulder over his head prevents him from attacking with an axe. That isn't taking away his ability to do so, just that doing so will have consequences (dropping the boulder). If a wizard could keep invisibility up while casting (even from a ring), it'd be way to OP and game breaking. – J. A. Streich Dec 04 '15 at 19:45
  • I just thought that I'd add that the Greater Invisibility allows the casting of spells without dropping invisibility. Which a wizard can take at the 4th level. – J. A. Streich Dec 04 '15 at 20:02
  • @DaleM the way I understood it, "why is that different from" was the main question in the first place (the title, which puts emphasis on the "what happens if" was edited after the fact). My understanding was that WetNatchos made the same conclusion presented in your answer, but was confused by conflicting information from the developers. Your answer merely reiterates the obvious without providing any resolution for the actually confusing part of the issue. If you're suggesting not to overthink it and ignore what the devs said in this case, that could be correct, but you should state it clearly – DaFluid Dec 05 '15 at 20:13
  • @DaleM though, I guess we could make a separate question to ask what WetNatchos really wanted to know, and clean up this one for posterity. My only problem with that is, the correctness of this answer determines the usefulness of the other question. If your ruling is right, then explaining why it is so surely could make for a good constructive answer. If it's not, though, then the only answer to the question of "what is the difference" becomes "there is none". – DaFluid Dec 05 '15 at 20:18
6

Jeremy Crawford responded to my tweet.

Invisibility ends regardless of the method of casting.

WetNachos
  • 199
  • 1
  • 5