13
\$\begingroup\$

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)?

\$\endgroup\$
23
\$\begingroup\$

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.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah: note that it's not the Cast a Spell action that ends invisibility, it's the in-game act of casting a spell. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 4 '15 at 4:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$ – DaFluid Dec 4 '15 at 7:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DaFluid good question, why not ask it? \$\endgroup\$ – Dale M Dec 4 '15 at 10:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – WetNachos Dec 4 '15 at 12:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @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. \$\endgroup\$ – DaFluid Dec 4 '15 at 14:29
7
\$\begingroup\$

Jeremy Crawford responded to my tweet.

Invisibility ends regardless of the method of casting.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.