Distract drop invisibility?

[Oofta]

If you don't like that and want to play that any hostile act ends the spell, that's cool with me (assuming of course your tell your players first). But if you ask me, that crosses the line from "interpretation" to "house rule" here.

I disagree that it crosses into house rule ... it's simply my interpretation that taking a hostile action is by common usage definition (not a game term because that's not how 5E is written) attacking someone.

The rule does not say that you become visible if you make an attack roll or cast a spell.

But let me ask: if an invisible person throws a bead from a necklace of fireballs, do they become visible? The person throwing the bead is not making an attack roll. They are not casting a spell.

There are any number of magic items you could apply this logic to, which to me could be a pretty big loophole depending on your campaign. I think it violates the RAI on invisibility.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pauper

There is no unclarity or disagreement in this particular case. However, I will not argue this with you. I will, however, confirm that I stand by my earlier assessment, that you provided a weak justification for encouraging the DM to override the rules in this particular case.

I hope we can leave this behind us. I often appreciated your rules-related efforts in the DDAL forum.

 

[nswanson27]

I disagree that it crosses into house rule ... it's simply my interpretation that taking a hostile action is by common usage definition (not a game term because that's not how 5E is written) attacking someone.

The rule does not say that you become visible if you make an attack roll or cast a spell.

But let me ask: if an invisible person throws a bead from a necklace of fireballs, do they become visible? The person throwing the bead is not making an attack roll. They are not casting a spell.

There are any number of magic items you could apply this logic to, which to me could be a pretty big loophole depending on your campaign. I think it violates the RAI on invisibility.

That could be considered a loophole, but that doesn't justify your position. It's just a loophole. And I don't think putting the description of the help action as "attacking" is a very common usage definition... no offense.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Does distracting, as in for the help action, drop invisibility (from the distracter)?

That depends entirely on what you say your character is actually doing with the Help action. It's much easier to distract someone when they can see you, so a lot of the normal choices just won't work. You can't feint an attack or pretend you're doing something really threatening. Is he making a lot of noise similar to what minor illusion creates? That might not even work and might not count as the Help action at all. Are you opening your purse and emptying it on the ground? If the creature is greedy, gold appearing from nowhere might distract him! Are you using your staff to try to trip the creature, or grabbing at him, or pushing at him? That could be an attack. How exactly was your character trying to distract the opponent?

If you just say, "I use the Help action," then the DM is pretty free to interpret Help as he chooses. If his interpretation is that your character does something that makes you visible, well, you're visible. That's why you're supposed to describe what you're doing.

AL is RAW.

No it isn't.

As others have said, the DM in AL is perfectly free to rule how he wants if there is disagreement about the rules. It does not matter if the table disagrees with the rules or if the rules disagree with each other. The DM is always the final referee. That doesn't mean an AL DM can do anything he wants. WotC typically requires AL DMs to include and use as much material as possible, doesn't want them to use homebrew material or significantly modified adventures, and uses the PHB + 1 rule to limit character complexity. But the DM is still the DM.

As far as for what Crawford has said about attacks: "An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving." Personally, I don't put much stock in Crawford's answers because they often seem to result in very unrealistic results. I only use them when I don't know how to rule.

Oh, and PHB 195 says you can only make opportunity attacks against opponents you can see.

 

[Oofta]

That could be considered a loophole, but that doesn't justify your position. It's just a loophole. And I don't think putting the description of the help action as "attacking" is a very common usage definition... no offense.

It's just another example, and one you didn't answer. Would you consider someone using a bead from necklace of fire an attack? It's a simple question.

If the answer is yes, then it's just a question of where you draw the line. If the answer is no, then we simply disagree on what an attack is.

 

[jaelis]

I disagree that it crosses into house rule ... it's simply my interpretation that taking a hostile action is by common usage definition (not a game term because that's not how 5E is written) attacking someone.

The rule does not say that you become visible if you make an attack roll or cast a spell.

No but it does say "If there's ever any questions whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." If I wrote that sentence, I would mean that if you aren't sure whether something is an attack, you should use the presence of an attack roll to decide. And if you wrote that sentence without meaning that, I'd say you made a mistake. I'm not king of the world, you're welcome to disagree, but that's where I'm coming from.

But let me ask: if an invisible person throws a bead from a necklace of fireballs, do they become visible? The person throwing the bead is not making an attack roll. They are not casting a spell.

There are any number of magic items you could apply this logic to, which to me could be a pretty big loophole depending on your campaign. I think it violates the RAI on invisibility.

IMO the necklace of fireballs is ambiguous, it doesn't say you cast the spell but it does say the bead detonates as a spell. So I could go either way. If the bead simply exploded and dealt damage, I wouldn't have it pop invisibility, any more than your beartrap going off would.

 

[neogod22]

The question is, what is the character actually doing to distract the monster? Anything that has to do with touching ends invisibility.

 

[nswanson27]

It's just another example, and one you didn't answer. Would you consider someone using a bead from necklace of fire an attack? It's a simple question.

If the answer is yes, then it's just a question of where you draw the line. If the answer is no, then we simply disagree on what an attack is.

Technically I guess it would be an interact with object, and more than setting up a trap and flipping a switch to trigger it. I don't see why not breaking invis is a big deal in this case, since there's only a certain number of beads. Of course you can say, "an attack is this", but the thing is that there's tons of definitions that are explicitly and narrowly defined in d&d. It's what it is. That's what the designers balanced the game against power-wise.

I hear your argument here about where to draw the line in some places - I agree there can be a place for that if it's plausible the designers didn't foresee something - namely, certain magic items. However, before what we were talking about is the help action and invisibility, which is a general case that would have been heavily scrutinized by the designers. To that end, the presence of one shouldn't speak to the conclusion of the other, as there are different premises considered for each case.

 

[Oofta]

The question is, what is the character actually doing to distract the monster? Anything that has to do with touching ends invisibility.

Not according to what people are saying. After all throwing the holy hand grenade of Antioch would not be considered an attack since all it requires is that you count to three*, no attack roll required.

End of the day, it's a judgement call. I've given my logic and reasoning. You are intentionally causing or assisting in the harm of another creature; that's an attack. Of course it will only be an issue if you don't accept my ruling at the table when I DM.

*just remember that four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

 

[Oofta]

No but it does say "If there's ever any questions whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." If I wrote that sentence, I would mean that if you aren't sure whether something is an attack, you should use the presence of an attack roll to decide. And if you wrote that sentence without meaning that, I'd say you made a mistake. I'm not king of the world, you're welcome to disagree, but that's where I'm coming from.

I would say that it proves my point. In order to mean what you're saying it does it would have to state "You are only making an attack if you are making an attack roll." That's not what it says.

But now we're just repeating each other. We simply disagree.