Distract drop invisibility?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Don't mistake disagreement for an inability to understand.
Caliburn101
Explorer
There are touch based attacks in the game and touch based spells - neither of which may be successful but which count as an attack. A grapple is a touch based attack that does no damage for instance, and would break invisibility. A touch spell or natural ability which the opponent saved against would in fact just be a touch, but would break invisibility.
Why have an artificial split between a touch that doesn't do anything to the target whatsoever (because they saved, or the attack vs. AC was not successful) compared to a touch which successfully distracts?
If you accept that invisible distraction by touching is a possibility, then something like a Paladin's Lay on Hands should not break invisibility as it is not an attack or a spell - which would be an abuse of the system, and for that matter neither would a Clerics Turn Undead attempt, even if it was successful.
Who needs the Sanctuary spell when you can do such things?
Moreover, it is open to further abuse - you could enjoy advantage rolling to touch someone in combat and THEN cast a touch spell after you have done so with your spare hand - breaking invisibility after the fact if the DM doesn't count the initial attempt to touch as an attack.
There are so many ways to game this if the GM doesn't regard a touch to distract while invisible as an attack, as the spell is poorly written. By way of illustration, on the one hand a you break invisibility if you fire a bow silently and miss everything in the area by a mile, but you can summon radiant power from your god and have all undead flee from around you without breaking invisibility.
Counter-intuitive to say the least.
If this was allowed, by the same logic, imagine the Warlock whose familiar has had invisibility cast on it and takes the aid action every round on hapless targets of the masters Eldritch Blast. A second level spell for unlimited advantages on attack with no chance for the targets to avoid it unless they can see invisible... I would argue that any sensible GM is not going to allow that to stand.
Why have an artificial split between a touch that doesn't do anything to the target whatsoever (because they saved, or the attack vs. AC was not successful) compared to a touch which successfully distracts?
If you accept that invisible distraction by touching is a possibility, then something like a Paladin's Lay on Hands should not break invisibility as it is not an attack or a spell - which would be an abuse of the system, and for that matter neither would a Clerics Turn Undead attempt, even if it was successful.
Who needs the Sanctuary spell when you can do such things?
Moreover, it is open to further abuse - you could enjoy advantage rolling to touch someone in combat and THEN cast a touch spell after you have done so with your spare hand - breaking invisibility after the fact if the DM doesn't count the initial attempt to touch as an attack.
There are so many ways to game this if the GM doesn't regard a touch to distract while invisible as an attack, as the spell is poorly written. By way of illustration, on the one hand a you break invisibility if you fire a bow silently and miss everything in the area by a mile, but you can summon radiant power from your god and have all undead flee from around you without breaking invisibility.
Counter-intuitive to say the least.
If this was allowed, by the same logic, imagine the Warlock whose familiar has had invisibility cast on it and takes the aid action every round on hapless targets of the masters Eldritch Blast. A second level spell for unlimited advantages on attack with no chance for the targets to avoid it unless they can see invisible... I would argue that any sensible GM is not going to allow that to stand.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
Apparently you cannot conceive of the possibility that we merely disagree. It's not that hard to understand, the invisibility does not say it's broken if you take the attack action, it breaks if you attack. You then agree that a bully helping another bully punch you is attacking. I find it hard to believe you can reconcile those two or honestly say that if a dragon incinerated someone, it did not attack that person
I have no clue what else "would not work".
Anyway, have a good one.
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
OK, I will try to ask this clearly since I don't think I'm doing a good job.
You (and plenty of other people) feel that in the invisibility spell, the notion of attack should be interpreted using its ordinary real-world meaning. So if you do something that in ordinary life would be considered an attack, the spell should end. I accept that as a valid interpretation, and I have no objection to you playing that way.
I feel that in the same situation, the notion of attack should be interpreted narrowly, in a technical game sense. So if you do something that requires an attack roll, or that the rules explicitly call out as an attack, then the spell will end. If not then it continues.
I am interested in knowing why you prefer the first interpretation to the second, because I would like to understand that point of view.
When you say "I find it hard to believe you can reconcile those two or honestly say that if a dragon incinerated someone, it did not attack that person," is it because you don't understand my interpretation? I certainly agree that in your interpretation it is an attack. Do you agree that in my interpretation it is not? You are a thoughtful poster that I usually understand pretty well, so it is hard for me to imagine that you literally don't understand what I am saying. (Not that you have to agree, but you can understand what someone is saying even if you think they are wrong.) But if you don't I can try harder.
Just to put it out there, here are some reasons I could understand for your position. Are any of them close to the mark?
- That is the way it worked in older editions and you see no reason to change
- You think the spell is too powerful in my interpretation
- You think the spell is less fun in my interpretation
- You prefer to interpret the rules in natural language as much as possible
- You think some other rule tells us to use your interpretation
- You don't have any reason you just like what you like
At the bottom of that list is "you don't understand my interpretation and so you can't conceive of interpreting it differently than you do." Like I said I don't believe that is likely, but it is frustrating because that is how your responses come across.
You (and plenty of other people) feel that in the invisibility spell, the notion of attack should be interpreted using its ordinary real-world meaning. So if you do something that in ordinary life would be considered an attack, the spell should end. I accept that as a valid interpretation, and I have no objection to you playing that way.
I feel that in the same situation, the notion of attack should be interpreted narrowly, in a technical game sense. So if you do something that requires an attack roll, or that the rules explicitly call out as an attack, then the spell will end. If not then it continues.
I am interested in knowing why you prefer the first interpretation to the second, because I would like to understand that point of view.
When you say "I find it hard to believe you can reconcile those two or honestly say that if a dragon incinerated someone, it did not attack that person," is it because you don't understand my interpretation? I certainly agree that in your interpretation it is an attack. Do you agree that in my interpretation it is not? You are a thoughtful poster that I usually understand pretty well, so it is hard for me to imagine that you literally don't understand what I am saying. (Not that you have to agree, but you can understand what someone is saying even if you think they are wrong.) But if you don't I can try harder.
Just to put it out there, here are some reasons I could understand for your position. Are any of them close to the mark?
- That is the way it worked in older editions and you see no reason to change
- You think the spell is too powerful in my interpretation
- You think the spell is less fun in my interpretation
- You prefer to interpret the rules in natural language as much as possible
- You think some other rule tells us to use your interpretation
- You don't have any reason you just like what you like
At the bottom of that list is "you don't understand my interpretation and so you can't conceive of interpreting it differently than you do." Like I said I don't believe that is likely, but it is frustrating because that is how your responses come across.
Last edited:
Arial Black
Adventurer
But the invisibility spell in not cancelled by the target taking 'active hostile action' (not a game term), it is cancelled if the target 'attacks' (game term) or 'casts a spell' (game term).
It is not a sound debating position that the spell description which is defining which game mechanics affect this game mechanic suddenly uses a game term ('attack') as if it were not a game term!
"Oh, when we used the game term 'attack' in the invisibility spell, we didn't really mean it the way we define it(!), we mean it as a general term for 'anything offensive the DM can think of'".
Nah. Not a chance!
jaelis
Oh this is where the title goes?
Well it doesn't make sense to me, obviously, but I can accept that someone believes that in this particular context, for some reason, we are not supposed to interpret "attack" as a game term. And if they believe that, then they are playing consistently. I think it ought to be possible to express what that reason is though.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
So by that logic is an invisible Cleric who is using the Healer feat on an allied Fighter who is attacking also attacking? They are assisting the fighter, after all, by making sure she can continue to attacking. Would that break the invisibility? How about the Rogue who snuck up under the cover of Invisibility to recon the foes before the battle commenced? His information was certainly helpful to someone who would be attacking. That should break invis, too.
Honestly, just use Occam's Razor here. Attacking leads to the potential of the actor doing damage. Using the Help action does not do that. QED.
Oofta
Legend
The game term would be "take an attack action". There's no reason to believe that the real world meaning of the word would not apply since there is no place where the words state that "as far as the game is concerned this is what we mean when we use the term attack". Yes, there are rules on how to resolve certain types of attacks, that does not mean that anything not covered by that section of the book would not be considered an attack.
That's different from casting a spell, because in the real world we cannot cast literal spells as defined by the game.
It goes back to fundamentals. Unless the rules say otherwise, use common terminology. The rules clarify how to resolve certain types of attacks, it does not redefine the term, it does not need to.
That and I think it's silly that dropping a nuke /using a flamethrower/breathing fire on someone would not be considered an attack.
But this is all repeat. This is not about what's "better" it's how to read the rules. I don't see a point on this endless circular argument.
Arial Black
Adventurer
OK, one last time in case I wasn't clear.
I view the rules as a method to implement real world activities (well, with spells and dragons); things that we could do in real life or things that we see in movies. The rules are there to give us a way to resolve those activities.
So in another example, I know what jumping is. The rules give me a way to implement jumping in a relatively fair and balanced (if not always particularly realistic) way.
So let's go back to a real world fight scenario. Two bullies approach, one throws sand in your eyes and the other sucker punches you while you're rubbing your eyes. I would say both bullies are attacking you. You agreed.
Now, let's say I want to run that scenario in game. The same thing happens from a narrative perspective. Two thugs approach the PC, one throws sand (helps) and the other sucker punches the PC while they're rubbing their eyes (attacks with advantage).
The fact that one scenario happened in the real world and the other happened in a game does not change the fact that I would describe it as two bullies/thugs attacking a person. Just because we have to resolve the uncertain outcomes in the game by following rules and rolling dice does not mean that the narrative changes.
But that's just my ruling. There are a number of scenarios where there is no attack roll where I would say that someone was attacking. As someone else posted if I lit up a flamethrower and fired it at you, I would be attacking you. I don't think anyone would debate that. I don't think it's reasonable that if you replace flamethrower with fire breathing dragon that it's suddenly open to debate.
Rule the way that you want at your table. As long as you're logical and consistent it's fine. Well, until the group starts getting fried by invisible dragons who remain invisible because they aren't "attacking" of course.
You can describe all those things as 'attacks' (non-game term) as much as you like, but what they are not are 'attacks' as the game term, and the spell is definitely using it as a game term!
If we could be so loose with the game term then great! I have a magic sword that gives me +1 to attack! So, +1 to the DC of my breath weapons and spells (as long as the spell does something to the target that it wouldn't like), +1 to all my skill checks that I can insert the word 'attack' into the description of what I'm doing (Athletics? I'll 'attack' that mountain and climb up lickety-split! Animal Handling? Mule-skinning sounds offensive to me! Deception? They definitely don't want to be deceived! Intimidation? Not even a question, +1 for me! Performance? The way I butchered that poem surely gets me that +1! Sleight of Hand? Well, I am invading his personal space!)
Thanks, +1 sword! I can't wait to get the Vorpal version so that when I intimidate people their heads fall off!
Now, is that all silly and ridiculous? Does pretending that 'attack', even though it is a game term, is not used as a game term when describing the game mechanics, result in the absurd? YES! But that's what you are doing: taking the word 'attack', when clearly used as a game term, and pretending that it's being used as 'natural language'!
Invisibility does not end when the target 'does something hostile', it ends when the target casts a spell, makes an attack roll, or takes an action which the rules specifically say counts as an attack! Only 'push' and 'grapple' fall into that category so far.
Similar Threads
