Distract drop invisibility?

[Gardens & Goblins]

..words man. It's all words

I definitely think that it would be worth asking JC about the invisible dragon situation if anyone uses Twitter. It strikes me as an interesting edge case where DM ruling is probably needed over the letter of the rules, but I'd be intrigued to know what he says in response.

Sure we could. I get the feeling he'd die a little inside and wonder why folks were so keen to stick to the letter of the rule rather than work with common sense.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings

Reading his blurb here we can perhaps gain some insight into his thinking - thinking which for me at least, is hardly alien or strange.

So perhaps if folks broke it down into their own RAW/RAI/RAF points of view, we might have a better understanding where folks are coming from.

Personally:

RAW - Dragon breath isn't called an attack. Invisibility calls out attacks and spells as the things that break it. Also, I'm the DM, and part of that role includes mediating between rules and players, recognizing that the rules don't account for every possible situation and understanding that mediating the rules sometimes means setting limits (to paraphrase the DMG). I recognize that the rules are not perfect and require the DM to play their part as 'Master of Rules' and are specifically called out to play this role in order to support the functioning of the game system.

RAI - Trying to hurt someone/something while Invisible breaks the spell. That, to my mind, seems like the intent. It also follows that this is why Greater Invisibility is ...greater, because with it you can hurt someone/something while invisible. Dragons typically use their breath weapons to hurt someone/something and is something hostile & potentially hurty, which in keeping with my understanding of the intent of the rules, should the break Invisibility spell.

RAF - Are invisible dragons breathing blasting bolts of lightning at characters fun? Sure. For a given value of fun, as determined by each table. In other words, its subjective and up for the table to decide in their own way.

So, with regards to my table -- they might think the idea of an Invisible (and heck, let's throw Sanctuary in there while we're at it) Dragon blasting them with its breath weapon is fun (..maybe..) we also agree that it would break Invisibility because while its not specifically called out as an attack, the intent of Invisibility seems to be to prevent folks from trying to directly hurt other folks - be it though spells or whatever. And as the DM and someone who recognizes that rules were not written as a legal text and as such do require some judgement calls and limit setting, I'm comfortable with counting the dragon's breath as something that breaks Invisibility*.

*.. and the act of making such a call as a DM, to my mind, is both RAW, RAI and RAF, with regards to the role of the DM in the game system.

 

[Satyrn]

BRB - Dragon breath'ing a few more villages. Cease fire? Truce? Ha! It is was it is - and that's not an attack! It's just well calculate collateral damage! BUUUUUURRRNNN!

Dude, you had a cease fire! You should've used your lightning breath!

 

[Arial Black]

RAI - Trying to hurt someone/something while Invisible breaks the spell.

No it doesn't. 'Trying to hurt someone' is not on the list of things that pop invisibility. 'Trying to hurt someone' no more pops that spell than it would pop mage armour or polymorph.

That, to my mind, seems like the intent.

That's where you're going wrong!

Why would you think that? There is nothing in the spell that suggests that, no blurb describing popping the spell in layman's terms before we get to the crunch.

I'll tell you why you think that: it's because the way invisibility popped in previous editions, 'trying to hurt someone' was on the pop list. But it isn't in 5e!

Invisibility (the 2nd level spell) has been completely re-written for 5e. They didn't copy/paste the wording from a previous edition accompanied by an error that lost 'hurt someone' in the process. They didn't accidentally write the spell wrong, they didn't forget the 'hurt someone' part. They deliberately wrote it such that the only things that pop the spell are (game terms) 'attack' and 'cast a spell'.

But why would they deliberately change how it gets popped for this edition? Because adjudicating the popping of the spell in previous editions was a nightmare! It got to be so absurd that 3e (full of precisely defined terms) had the spell pop if you so much as included an enemy in the area of effect of something of yours. So, while intending the spell to pop when you 'hurt someone', it also popped when an enemy happened to be in the area of your detect magic, even if you didn't know the enemy was there! It also meant that the invisibility spell somehow reads your mind and knows which creatures are your enemies and which creatures are your friends!

This edition avoids all of this mess simply by having a pop list of two clearly defined game terms: 'attack' and 'cast a spell'. No arguments now!

Well, there wouldn't be, if people weren't still remembering how previous editions did it and imagining that 5e was trying to do the same but wrote it badly. No! They wrote it exactly as they intended!

Is dragon breath on the pop list? No. End of.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

No it doesn't. 'Trying to hurt someone' is not on the list of things that pop invisibility.

Which is RAW.

..and why I listed my thoughts under RAI.

 

[Arial Black]

Which is RAW.

..and why I listed my thoughts under RAI.

...and my point was that it's not RAI either!

JC didn't accidentally change the wording of how invisibility pops from previous editions, he deliberately changed it.

When he changed the wording he didn't accidentally change the meaning from 'if you hurt an enemy' to 'if you (game mechanic) attack or cast a spell', he deliberately changed the way the spell pops.

The new way he deliberately wrote the spell means that 'if you hurt an enemy' is not something that pops the spell.

If he meant the spell to pop 'if you hurt an enemy', he would not have chosen a form of words which are exactly the same as terms with a game definition which is different to 'if you hurt an enemy'.

If he wanted the spell to pop that way then instead of a two item popping list ('attack', 'cast a spell') he would've added a third item: 'if you hurt an enemy'. He didn't write that, because he didn't want that!

The only reason why anyone would imagine that the spell would pop 'if you hurt an enemy' is because of the way the spell popped in previous editions. If 5e had been the only version of D&D ever, or if every version of the spell had only ever said that it pops if you 'attack' or 'cast a spell' at the same time as defining those terms such that dragon breath did not meet either definition, then no-one would imagine that 'if you hurt an enemy' was really what the designer meant!

 

[Oofta]

...and my point was that it's not RAI either!

JC didn't accidentally change the wording of how invisibility pops from previous editions, he deliberately changed it.

When he changed the wording he didn't accidentally change the meaning from 'if you hurt an enemy' to 'if you (game mechanic) attack or cast a spell', he deliberately changed the way the spell pops.

The new way he deliberately wrote the spell means that 'if you hurt an enemy' is not something that pops the spell.

If he meant the spell to pop 'if you hurt an enemy', he would not have chosen a form of words which are exactly the same as terms with a game definition which is different to 'if you hurt an enemy'.

If he wanted the spell to pop that way then instead of a two item popping list ('attack', 'cast a spell') he would've added a third item: 'if you hurt an enemy'. He didn't write that, because he didn't want that!

The only reason why anyone would imagine that the spell would pop 'if you hurt an enemy' is because of the way the spell popped in previous editions. If 5e had been the only version of D&D ever, or if every version of the spell had only ever said that it pops if you 'attack' or 'cast a spell' at the same time as defining those terms such that dragon breath did not meet either definition, then no-one would imagine that 'if you hurt an enemy' was really what the designer meant!

Gee, speaking as "anyone" who thinks it should pop if you attack - meaning attack, not attack - my ruling is not based on previous editions. I simply believe that while the rules define how to resolve a melee, ranged or spell attack, they do not change the word. It's not how 5E was written as has been referred to many times. I think previous editions got quite carried away with gamer speak so I avoid it.

As far as reading the minds of the devs to determine their intent, I make no claim to ESP. Feel free to rule differently, just pointing out you don't speak for everyone.

 

[jaelis]

If I understand correctly, Oofta would rule that mirror image could protect you from a magic missile spell?

"Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates."

I expect you would interpret magic missile as an attack, and thus it would target a random image? Same for any other (hostile) targeted spell like charm person? But not for a friendly spell like bless?

I guess the magic missile would destroy a mirror image duplicate that it hits?

 

[Oofta]

If I understand correctly, Oofta would rule that mirror image could protect you from a magic missile spell?

"Each time a creature targets you with an attack during the spell’s duration, roll a d20 to determine whether the attack instead targets one of your duplicates."

I expect you would interpret magic missile as an attack, and thus it would target a random image? Same for any other (hostile) targeted spell like charm person? But not for a friendly spell like bless?

I guess the magic missile would destroy a mirror image duplicate that it hits?

What does that have to do with this topic? My ruling on what stops invisibility has nothing to do with previous editions.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

...and my point was that it's not RAI either!

By your reading and understanding, sure. Which is as valid as mine.

Bottom line - some folks will be ok with dragons using their breath weapon while under the effect of an Invisibility spell. Some will not.

I'd wager that many of those that are not ok with it believe the intent of the spell is that directly damaging or harming someone ends the spell. And understand that the rules are not perfect, requiring a DM to play the role of Keeper of the Rules, as described in the DMG. As such, they will have the spell end.

And those that are happy with Invisibility not ending when a dragon uses their breath weapon? Obviously, they'll rule otherwise.

Personally, I understand that the rules can't account for every aspect of play and believe that with regards to Invisibility (as well as Sanctuary) and their interaction with a dragon's breath attack are just one of many kinks in the system that the DM, acting within their defined role as Keeper of the Rules, can rectify.

Suspecting this might be a case of the RAW & RAI not playing nice, I then applied the process described by JC himself, and came to my conclusions as detailed earlier.

JC didn't accidentally change the wording of how invisibility pops from previous editions, he deliberately changed it.

When he changed the wording he didn't accidentally change the meaning from 'if you hurt an enemy' to 'if you (game mechanic) attack or cast a spell', he deliberately changed the way the spell pops.

The new way he deliberately wrote the spell means that 'if you hurt an enemy' is not something that pops the spell.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Did his intent for the spell change? What was he trying to achieve? I believe this is very important. Personally, I think its far more likely that the intent stayed true. It seems more likely than JC thinking, 'Hmmm you know what? I really want folks to find things that function as attacks / damaging spells but aren't specifically called out as them so that they can be used to maintain the Invisibility spell. Like a dragon's breath attack! Yes! I shall change the language of the rules accordingly!'

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Of course, this also applies to the shenanigans of a cater casting the spell Dragon's Breath through their Invisible Familiar.

''YES, OK, I CAST A SPELL - VIA MY FAMILIAR. RANGE OF TOUCH BABY!''

-- ok.

''AND MY FAMILIAR THEN BLASTED THE TARGET WITH THE 15' CONE OF FIRE''

-- ok.

''WHICH ISN'T TECHNICALLY AN ATTACK! SO ITS STILL INVISIBLE!''

-- ...yeah, I'm gonna need to ponder on this further.

''NO OH OH! RAW BABY! NOT AN ATTACK! NOPE!''

-- ..but do you really think that's in keeping with the intent of the spell?

''SURE! WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BE WRITTEN LIKE THAT!!''

-- ...that's... not... how intent works o_o ....



(And of course, if the table is fine with this kinda thing, or anything, obviously the game rocks on.)