Distract drop invisibility?

[Oofta]

So would it be correct to say your view is that if a word or phrase in the rules has a common meaning outside the rules, that common meaning has priority over a game-specific definition? So "attack" defaults to the common use, regardless of how it might be defined in another context?

I guess that can't quite be right though. For instance, a "melee attack" is a well-defined thing outside the game. If you are in melee with an opponent and do something aggressive to distract them, I think conventionally you would call that a melee attack. But I guess you would not allow someone to use the aid action as an opportunity attack, even though an OA lets you make a melee attack?

Or is it that you just feel 'attack' in particular is not a game-defined term and so we should treat it as common language. Whereas maybe 'melee attack' is a game-defined term?

I'm not following. First, "melee attack" is never a phrase I've heard outside of a game. Irregardless, the rules merely define how to resolve the attack, and add in some rules about being adjacent unless you have a reach weapon, etc. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding opportunity attacks.

The game doesn't redefine the term in any way, just defines when and how it can be used.

 

[Arial Black]

Got me this here flamethrower.

Just gonna fire off a few lengthy bursts over there. And here. Some more there.

Not tryin' ta attack you good folks! Just firin' me flamethrower. Still invisible!

Yup!

Gonna toss me some grenades in a moment as well. All nice and casual like.

Lose a limb or two? A friend. All good!

Still invisible.

Yup!

And this is how invisibility works re: the 5e RAW. You might like it, you might not, you might even be attached to the way the spell ended in previous editions. But in 5e it ends (by its own description) by the target attacking (game term) or casting a spell (game term.) It does not end by any other method any more than mage armour or fly would end by using a breath weapon or hurting someone's feelings!

The strange thing is that it's only D&D players who imagine that invisible creatures become visible after attacking! Normal people(!) don't imagine this! Perseus donned the Cap of Invisibility and attacked The Medusa, but he didn't lose his invisibility in the process!

It's only a D&D thing, this 'lose invisibility after you attack', and only because previous editions said that the spell ended as detailed in the spell description. Therefore, the only spell description that is relevant in 5e is the 5e spell description, and that says that it ends early if the target attacks or casts a spell, both of which are game terms!

The sentence about 'if you are in any doubt if something counts as an attack' has a purpose, and that purpose is not only to say that that this list of things counts as an attack, but also to say that things not on the list are not an attack! If this were not the purpose of the sentence then it would be a total waste of ink!

It is against reason to imagine that when the writer wrote the list of what counts as an attack as:-

* things with an attack roll
* things that specifically say they count as an attack even though they don't have an attack roll

...which is a useful list so that we can definitely know if something is an attack or not, and then imagine that the writer meant to add a third item to the list:-

* errm, anything else you think is a bit attack-y

...because that would turn the list from something that definitely answers the question, "is this an attack, yes or no" into something that doesn't tell you the answer!

A 'normal' person who got hold of the Cap of Invisibility would not expect the Cap to stop working if you throw a grenade. Why? What has throwing something got to do with whatever magic makes you perfectly transparent?

D&D only has this for game balance; without it invisibility becomes too powerful for a 2nd level spell. It has nothing to do with any logical connection between 'attacking' and whether magic works.

One problem that previous editions had when their spell descriptions stated that 'attacking ends invisibility' is that they extended what 'attack' meant beyond what the game defined as an 'attack' into absurdity. Such absurdities included creatures who used a breath weapon on an area and if there was a hidden creature there then the breather lost invisibility and if the area was clear then they didn't. How does the spell know? Oh, you have to deliberately attack to lose invisibility, but if you accidentally hurt someone or hurt someone indirectly then you don't. Again, how does the spell know? Can it read your mind and your intentions, and make a judgement call? Spells are not sentient!

But good news, 5e has completely solved any ambiguity, because instead of an ambiguously extended definition of 'attack' for this spell and this spell only, it uses the normal game definition (and it is a game definition!) of 'attack' (and 'cast a spell'), and this does not include breath weapons or including an opponent in the area of detect magic like it did in previous editions.

It is disingenuous to read a spell description that includes a game term and pretend that it isn't a game term so that you can abuse 'natural language' and pretend that the game rules say that you lose invisibility if you wear white socks with black shoes because it's an 'attack' against good taste!

 

[Arial Black]

Outside of gaming, "AC" has no meaning. Ask someone the term "hit points" means that has never played a game that uses it. You'll get a blank stare. Outside of the context of gaming, it has no meaning. Ask them what the word "attack" means and they can tell you.

'Cast a spell' has meanings outside the game. "Her beauty and grace cast a spell on me and I fell in love with her". Does that mean that anyone who is loved cannot become invisible in the game on the grounds that when the rules tell you what 'cast a spell' is it forgets to tell us what 'cast a spell' is not, and so I can abuse 'natural language' and claim that anything I make up is 'what the rules say'.

The common usage definition of "attack" does not override the term found in the rules, the rules tell us how some attacks (weapon attacks, grapple, shove, etc) are implemented. It's never stated that those implementations of attack listed include all possible attacks. There's no sentence that says "for game purposes, an action is only considered an attack if it meets the following criteria..."

And they don't need to! They do not have that burden. The RAW tells us what the rules ARE, they don't need to tell us what the rules are NOT!

Imagine if they worked that way. "Okay DM, charm person tells us what the spell DOES, but it doesn't say anywhere that it also inflicts 10d100 damage, so it does!

That is what is being tried here. "The rules tell us what an 'attack' is, but they don't tell us what an 'attack' is NOT, therefore sneezing must be an 'attack' because nowhere in the rules does it say that 'sneezing' is NOT an 'attack'".

The rules are prescriptive; it's only a rule if it says it's a rule.

 

[jaelis]

I'm not following. First, "melee attack" is never a phrase I've heard outside of a game. Irregardless, the rules merely define how to resolve the attack, and add in some rules about being adjacent unless you have a reach weapon, etc. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding opportunity attacks.

The rules say "To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature."

"Melee" and "attack" are both common words with dictionary definitions. Would you allow those dictionary definitions to govern what kind of activity can be performed as an opportunity attack?

 

[Oofta]

The rules say "To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature."

"Melee" and "attack" are both common words with dictionary definitions. Would you allow those dictionary definitions to govern what kind of activity can be performed as an opportunity attack?

You are simply quoting an implementation of one way of attacking, that by no means defines all attacks.

I don't see any point in continuing this. I can't think of anything that could be added.

 

[jaelis]

You are simply quoting an implementation of one way of attacking, that by no means defines all attacks.

I don't understand that response. I'm not trying to define all attacks. I'm asking you how you define what a "melee attack" is, because I don't think it is very likely that you use the same approach that you are advocating for "attacks" in general.

I don't see any point in continuing this. I can't think of anything that could be added.

I'm sorry to hear that, plenty of people share your view and I would like to understand why.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The help action is defined as a distraction and it is not an attack as defined in the rules. If you make an attack, you roll dice.
What you're saying is fundamentally different than what the rules are for combat in 5e. Per the rules, "If there’s ever any question 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."

True, but there are attacks that do not involve making an attack roll. For example, grappling.

I would rule that helping someone else make an attack is an active hostile action, so it cancels invisibility.

 

[Oofta]

I don't understand that response. I'm not trying to define all attacks. I'm asking you how you define what a "melee attack" is, because I don't think it is very likely that you use the same approach that you are advocating for "attacks" in general.


I'm sorry to hear that, plenty of people share your view and I would like to understand why.

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.

 

[jaelis]

Oofta, you have explained how you play well and clearly, I feel confident that I get it. But the invisibility spell is not a real thing, popping it will be arbitrary no matter how one one rules. What I don’t understand is why you think it is better to have it pop easily. Why do you dislike the idea of an invisible dragon breathing fire?

 

[Oofta]

Oofta, you have explained how you play well and clearly, I feel confident that I get it. But the invisibility spell is not a real thing, popping it will be arbitrary no matter how one one rules. What I don’t understand is why you think it is better to have it pop easily. Why do you dislike the idea of an invisible dragon breathing fire?

It has nothing to do with "better". It's following the rules of the invisibility spell that say that if you attack the spell ends. When the bully/thug threw the sand to help their ally, they were attacking. Had they been invisible they would have become visible.