Distract drop invisibility?

[Arial Black]

I'll be the first to agree that there's a lot of gray areas in 5E

Sure, and it's the DM's job to decide if this bit of grey is actually black or white for this roll. When the player asks if this roll has advantage, the answer is either black or white for this roll, even if the general case may be grey.

What you are doing is taking a piece of the rules which is black and white, pretending it is grey, and then ruling that it's purple!

Just because some parts of the rules are grey (stealth) doesn't mean that every part of the rules is grey!

DM: What's your AC?
Player: ...It's a grey area, really. Don't you think?
DM:....NO!

 

[neogod22]

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.

As a DM that would be my judgement call.

 

[neogod22]

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.

Anything that does damage, or causes a character to make a saving throw causes invisibility to end. That's in the rules.

 

[jaelis]

That's in the rules.

"in the rules" is not the same as "that's what I think the rules mean." I know that can be confusing for some people.

What is in the rules is that the spell ends if you attack or cast a spell. Attacks don't have to cause damage, and not everything that causes damage is an attack. Spells don't always cause saving throws, and saving throws aren't always the result of spells.

 

[Caliburn101]

If you are distracting by touching or in some visual way then it drops - period. You have made yourself visible to visually distract or you have 'attacked' (a touch can be an attack in the RAW) if you touch them.

If you are making a noise to distract them, then you do not become visible, but in all but the most unusual situations they would know which square you are in, or if you move, they would get a Perception check against your stealth, or a Perception check with advantage if you didn't use stealth to move.

Anyone stating categorically that it doesn't break invisibility at all because of the statement in the spell isn't paying sufficient attention to the GM's role of situational judgement in this, nor taking into account that different attempts to distract have obviously different implications.

 

[jaelis]

Anyone stating categorically that it doesn't break invisibility at all because of the statement in the spell isn't paying sufficient attention to the GM's role of situational judgement in this, nor taking into account that different attempts to distract have obviously different implications.

Accepting that at face value, could you explain to me your reasoning for why touching an opponent breaks the spell? That is to say, I accept that its a judgement call in the purvey of the DM. What is your basis for making the call the way you do?

 

[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.



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.

If a necklace of fireballs is ambiguous, what about a dragon's breath? It's listed as an action for the dragon, not specifically labeled an attack, does not require an attack roll, it's not a spell.

Whether or not helping someone crosses the line is IMHO a ruling, but are you are you saying that a dragon breathing fire on it's opponents is not attacking? Because by your logic that's the only conclusion I can come to.

 

[jaelis]

Dragons are tough, man

But yes indeed, I would not have a dragon's breath pop invisibility, for the reasons you explain.

I suppose you would rule that a dragon using its Frightful Presence ability would pop invisibility?

 

[Oofta]

Dragons are tough, man

But yes indeed, I would not have a dragon's breath pop invisibility, for the reasons you explain.

The sentence that keeps getting quoted is taken out of context. It starts with "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack..." I think the vast majority of people would say that a red dragon attempting to turn people into ash against their will is an attack. If we already know it's an attack, there's no reason to pay any attention to the rest of the paragraph.

I don't think this even qualifies for Occam's Razor - more like Occam's dull, bludgeoning club. The most logical interpretation of "attack" should include a dragon's breath weapon. It's an aggressive action intended to do harm. Same as if your invisible PC quaffed a potion of dragon breath and attacked the enemy.

After that it's just a matter of making a judgment call of what it means to take an action that is intentionally causing harm.

I suppose you would rule that a dragon using its Frightful Presence ability would pop invisibility?

This is another one that's a judgment call. Since the dragon actively chooses who is affected or not affected, yes I would consider it an attack. The dragon is attacking the psyche of their opponents causing them to become frightened.

 

[jaelis]

I don't feel any need to argue about your interpretation of attack, obviously if you read it in as a hostile action, then a dragon's breath would be an attack. (I don't really understand why frightful presence would be ambiguous, nor why it depends on the dragon picking targets. It doesn't select targets when it breaths. What if it breathed fire in an area it thought was unoccupied, but actually there was a creature hiding there?)

But I would be happy to understand why you think interpreting it broadly is better than interpreting it narrowly. It is clear that you understand how the narrow interpretation works.