On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:27:31 +1300, tussock  wrote:
| Harold Groot wrote:
|
|> But if you were strong enough to hold the troll suspended over the
|> fire and then merely took your supporting arms away so the troll fell
|> into the fire, going strictly by the RAW spell definition your
|> INVISIBILITY would NOT go away.  You didn't directly cause the troll
|> to take damage, it was gravity and the fire below that did it.
|
|     That there: dude totally dropped the troll on the fire.
|
|> This is the same as the example they give in the spell description:
|
|     Not really.
|
|> You can cut a rope anchoring a rope bridge so that enemies on the bridge
|> fall to their death - and because you didn't directly cause them to take
|> damage, your INVISIBILITY remains.
|
|     This thing, the bridge, it's not "you", our actor. I get that English 
| insists the bridge is not capable of action, and thus it was the rope-cutter 
| who "dropped the people to their deaths", but in a strict logical sense it 
| was the bridge that failed to support the victims on account of our actor 
| having broken it.
|
|     When the actor fails to support the troll, that's direct.


Or, to put it another way:

You can't drop the troll into the fire if the troll isn't in your arms, so it's
a direct attack.

You can cut the bridge ropes if the enemies aren't on the bridge, so it isn't a
direct attack on them.


-- 
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.    http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
     Asking for technical help in newsgroups?  Read this first:
        http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro