Distract drop invisibility?

[Oofta]

Invisibility does not end because you take an attack action, it ends if you attack. Since 5E is written in naturalistic language it can't be parsed like a technical document which is different than some previous versions.

I rule that any action that intentionally harms or interferes with another creature is an attack. Distracting someone is interfering with another creature and therefore falls under the umbrella of "attacking". In this case, the invisible creature has to somehow physically interact with the target - otherwise how else are you distracting them? There are a lot of things an invisible person can do that I would consider an attack that are not enumerated under the attack action.

As far as the opportunity attack, you don't get an opportunity attack against a creature you can't see.

 

[nswanson27]

I rule that any action that intentionally harms or interferes with another creature is an attack. .

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."

 

[Oofta]

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.

I agree you are not taking an attack action. You are, however actively causing harm (by way of distraction). Intentionally causing harm IMHO is an attack.

Disagree? Rule differently when you DM or point to an official published sage advice column that proves me wrong. There are always going to be minor differences of opinions amongst different DMs.

 

[Arial Black]

Invisibility does not end because you take an attack action, it ends if you attack.

And in 5e, 'attack' is game-rule jargon which has a specific meaning. 'Attack' in 5e means that:-

* there is a 'attack roll'

OR

* a specific rule says that it is an attack despite the lack of an attack roll. The only case I can think of is push/grapple

So, "I say nasty things in a verbal attack, pointing out his his rotten personality traits in an attempt to hurt his feelings" may be an 'attack' in naturalistic language but is definitely not an 'attack' per the 5e rules!

I rule that any action that intentionally harms or interferes with another creature is an attack.

Do you? What you are describing is how you are deliberately not following the rules of 5e! We are debating what the rules actually are! You making up your own, replacement rules is not relevant to the question of what the RAW actually is!

Distracting someone is interfering with another creature and therefore falls under the umbrella of "attacking".

Your umbrella maybe, but not 5e's.

In this case, the invisible creature has to somehow physically interact with the target - otherwise how else are you distracting them?

By shouting "BOO!" in their ear, or anything else which doesn't involve an attack roll, a grapple, a push or casting a spell.

There are a lot of things an invisible person can do that I would consider an attack that are not enumerated under the attack action.

Interesting, but not relevant in a debate about what the rule actually is. If, in my game, I consider wearing white socks with black shoes an 'attack' on fashion, this is not relevant to the debate on 5e RAW re: ending invisibility by 'attacking'!

 

[nswanson27]

I agree you are not taking an attack action. You are, however actively causing harm (by way of distraction). Intentionally causing harm IMHO is an attack.

Disagree? Rule differently when you DM or point to an official published sage advice column that proves me wrong. There are always going to be minor differences of opinions amongst different DMs.

See my edit that includes the quote from the rules. I don't need to see a sage advice on something this cut and dry to feel like I'm correct.
EDIT:
I guess there is this:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/25/can-a-familiar-use-help-to-grant-advantage-at-range/
where the distinction is applied to familiars.

 

[Oofta]

See my edit that includes the quote from the rules. I don't need to see a sage advice on something this cut and dry to feel like I'm correct.
EDIT:
I guess there is this:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/25/can-a-familiar-use-help-to-grant-advantage-at-range/
where the distinction is applied to familiars.

I'm glad you feel that you are correct, it would be quite silly if you made a ruling that you did not feel was correct. However, just because something is an attack if you roll a die does not mean that it is not an attack if you do not roll. Just because a square is a rectangle it does not mean that all rectangles are squares.

I have no problem with your ruling, I've just given you my own ruling an my reasoning. In my opinion if you are intentionally causing harm or interfering in another creatures actions to their detriment you are taking an aggressive action; you are attacking for the purposes of the spell.

As always, feel free to rule differently at your table.

 

[jaelis]

I agree you are not taking an attack action. You are, however actively causing harm (by way of distraction). Intentionally causing harm IMHO is an attack.

The help action says "You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective." So if I came up with some other way to aid the attack that didn't involve distracting the target, it would be OK? For instance, I could point out that the creatures guard is weak on his left side?

On the other hand, what if we are not in combat, but trying to sneak past a guard. If I throw a rock to make a noise in the distance, would that count as distracting the guard and pop my invisibility?

Just curious how you would handle the situations.

 

[nswanson27]

I'm glad you feel that you are correct, it would be quite silly if you made a ruling that you did not feel was correct.

But you made an appeal to sage advice, which implied to me that you were concerned about that the rules in the handbook say and what the designer says, not just what your opinion of it is as a DM. If this is just about what your ruling is, well then ok. "Correct" meaning in reference to the rules say, not your ruling.

However, just because something is an attack if you roll a die does not mean that it is not an attack if you do not roll. Just because a square is a rectangle it does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
​

Ahh, but look again at the part: "If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack...". This is talking about both directions (equivalence), even though the second part only mentions one direction. The purpose of the sentence to do decide when you're making an attack (as stated). Merely stating that attack rolls implies an attack (and not the other direction) would not accomplish this purpose. It would be a deficient statement in that case.

 

[Oofta]

The help action says "You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective." So if I came up with some other way to aid the attack that didn't involve distracting the target, it would be OK? For instance, I could point out that the creatures guard is weak on his left side?

On the other hand, what if we are not in combat, but trying to sneak past a guard. If I throw a rock to make a noise in the distance, would that count as distracting the guard and pop my invisibility?

Just curious how you would handle the situations.

I'll be the first to agree that there's a lot of gray areas in 5E, and a lot of DM adjudication. It's been mentioned on podcasts for example that they had detailed stealth rules and decided to toss them for more of a "the DM decides" approach. I think that's a better direction and leads to less rules-lawyering than there was in 3.x/Pathfinder.

So in the case of sneaking past the guard, no I would not consider that an attack. You are not actively trying to lead to the death, dismemberment or disembowelment of an opponent. Is that a judgement call? Yep.

In the case of discussing tactics in the middle of combat, no I don't think that would rise to the level of being enough assistance to be considered an attack. Then again I don't think it rises to the level of granting advantage either.

If an invisible PC can help the rogue get advantage every round, the rogue is potentially significantly more deadly and it may make the most sense for the invisible PC to do that on a regular basis. Suddenly invisibility is effectively an offensive spell.

There are other situations where my ruling is applicable than this. Let's say there's a bear trap nearby. The invisible PC puts the bear trap in the same square as the opponent. Technically they have not attacked because the PC did not make an attack roll, even though the opponent will have to roll to avoid the trap on their turn.

 

[jaelis]

I'll be the first to agree that there's a lot of gray areas in 5E, and a lot of DM adjudication. It's been mentioned on podcasts for example that they had detailed stealth rules and decided to toss them for more of a "the DM decides" approach. I think that's a better direction and leads to less rules-lawyering than there was in 3.x/Pathfinder.

I'm happy with the 5e approach to stealth, except that I think they should have provided some guidelines and advice about it in the DMG.

That said, I don't think the question of attacks was set up as a grey area. They took some trouble to spell out what an attack meant, I take that at face value. If you want to use your action every turn to make sure the rogue gets sneak attack, that is fine with me. (Of course you could do that anyway even if you weren't invisible.)

--
Actually, just to expound on that... I like the stealth rules because they say, in essence, "This is really situational. Use your judgement to decide how it will work out in a given situation." That is fine, but you are using judgement based on your real-world ideas and experiences.

Popping invisibility is nothing like that. There's no obvious reason invisibility should pop when you attack someone, so there's no basis for applying judgement. If they had said the spell ends when you commit a hostile act, then sure, you would have to take into account the situation and even the mindset of the player. We do have some basis for judging what a hostile act is. But that can get messy and I think they deliberately avoided it by just keying it to specific, well defined actions.

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.