Distract drop invisibility?

[Arial Black]

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.

Great! So even though 'cast a spell' has a clear game definition, I shall assume that every time the rules say 'cast a spell' that they don't really mean it! They are using 'natural language', and I'll fall in love with the invisible dragon because it 'cast a spell' on me, popping its invisibility!

I'm sure that's what JC intended!

Also, the word 'fighter' is not only a game definition meaning a character with levels in the fighter class, it also is 'natural language' for anyone who fights.

My blade pact warlock 'fights', therefore by your ruling (whenever a word mentioned in the rules is both a rules term and a 'natural language' word, we assume JC meant the 'natural language' version!) my warlock is trained in heavy armour, gets feats/ASIs every two levels, and gets to choose a fighting style!

What's more, these are not house rules, they are just as valid an interpretation of the RAW as anyone's!

 

[Arial Black]

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!'

If his intent was that it popped with a definition of 'attack' different than the 5e definition, he would've been careful not to use that word.

If his intent was that it pops when you take any hostile action, then he didn't need to change the wording from previous editions; he could've cut/paste from a previous version.

IIRC, the 1e/2e version even said in parentheses that "for the purpose of this spell, 'attack' means..." and then goes on to mention any hostile act. It had to say that, because if it didn't it would default to the game definition of 'attack'.

If his intention was to have it work like previous editions then he would've kept that wording. But he went to the trouble of writing it differently, which indicates that he wanted it to work differently.

 

[Harzel]

If his intent was that it popped with a definition of 'attack' different than the 5e definition, he would've been careful not to use that word.

If his intent was that it pops when you take any hostile action, then he didn't need to change the wording from previous editions; he could've cut/paste from a previous version.

IIRC, the 1e/2e version even said in parentheses that "for the purpose of this spell, 'attack' means..." and then goes on to mention any hostile act. It had to say that, because if it didn't it would default to the game definition of 'attack'.

As it turns out, you do not recall correctly. 1e and 2e said that attacks cause the spell to end and they give examples of things that are not attacks. And, as far as I know, they did not anywhere attempt to define 'attack' as a 'game term'. 3.5e uses the "for purposes of this spell" language.

If his intention was to have it work like previous editions then he would've kept that wording. But he went to the trouble of writing it differently, which indicates that he wanted it to work differently.

As far as the use of the word "attack" to indicate something that causes the spell to end, he did keep the wording. What changed was the separate, additional description of what qualifies as an attack.

You contend that that additional description both a) is a comprehensive definition (although that is not the only possible interpretation of the passage); and b) means something other than what it literally says. Given the authors' penchant for loose language, which seems often to rise to outright contempt for clarity, your conclusion is still an arguably reasonable reading. However, your degree of certainty that your interpretation is RAI seems wholly excessive.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As it turns out, you do not recall correctly. 1e and 2e said that attacks cause the spell to end and they give examples of things that are not attacks. And, as far as I know, they did not anywhere attempt to define 'attack' as a 'game term'. 3.5e uses the "for purposes of this spell" language.



As far as the use of the word "attack" to indicate something that causes the spell to end, he did keep the wording. What changed was the separate, additional description of what qualifies as an attack.

You contend that that additional description both a) is a comprehensive definition (although that is not the only possible interpretation of the passage); and b) means something other than what it literally says. Given the authors' penchant for loose language, which seems often to rise to outright contempt for clarity, your conclusion is still an arguably reasonable reading. However, your degree of certainty that your interpretation is RAI seems wholly excessive.

Thank you for this.

To my mind, there's also a keen demonstration of a failure to understand intent and representation. In games, specifically in D&D, language is used as a tool to translate intent via a set of constraints we call 'rules'. This process is fraught with complications in no small part due to the wacky nature of English.

It is understandable that sometimes, during the process, the intent - the purpose for the rule/s existing - can be 'lost in translation'. To assume otherwise is foolish, at best. Even the most well written legal documents can suffer from this and there have been arguments over the 'letter of the law' vs 'the spirit of the law' for centuries.

Instead, I see folks arguing over the words chosen - this is not RAI, at least to my mind. While yes, we can discuss the intent behind a specific word choice, I have believed for some time that 'intent' with regards to RAI relates to what the designer was trying to achieve by designing the rule/s. This is supported by JC himself when he writes:

This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

To say, 'This is written like this therefore the intent is clear!' is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of RAI.

 

[CapnZapp]

Has anyone added a "beating dead horse" GIF yet?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Has anyone added a "beating dead horse" GIF yet?

Ironic that you'd complain about on topic discussion, no?

 

[Oofta]

Has anyone added a "beating dead horse" GIF yet?

I think the real question is: would the beating be considered an attack?

 

[Oofta]

If his intent was that it popped with a definition of 'attack' different than the 5e definition, he would've been careful not to use that word.

If his intent was that it pops when you take any hostile action, then he didn't need to change the wording from previous editions; he could've cut/paste from a previous version.

IIRC, the 1e/2e version even said in parentheses that "for the purpose of this spell, 'attack' means..." and then goes on to mention any hostile act. It had to say that, because if it didn't it would default to the game definition of 'attack'.

If his intention was to have it work like previous editions then he would've kept that wording. But he went to the trouble of writing it differently, which indicates that he wanted it to work differently.

Comparing 3.5 and 5E spell descriptions is kind of pointless.
[SBLOCK]
from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm

The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

The 5E version:

A creature you touch becomes invisible until the spell ends. Anything the target is wearing or carrying is invisible as long as it is on the target's person. The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.

[/SBLOCK]

The 3.5 version is a whole lot of dense game specific text you have to read through multiple times to understand with conditions, sub-conditions and exceptions.

I'll take a little ambiguity now and then with 5E for spell descriptions that are 3 sentences instead of 3 paragraphs and 1/8th the word count.

In my experience at the game table 3.5 had more rules disputes and a lot more page flipping/looking for specific arcane rules than 5E because no amount of clarification will answer every question. So I for one am glad they went with more relaxed language for 5E, the game is much more approachable. Even if we do have some people insisting that a dragon breathing fire on the party is not attacking.

 

[jaelis]

For those who were asking about sage advice rulings, there is this btw:

Q: Is Invisibility spell broken by using a class/race feature that doesn't involve a spell? (Psionics, Minor Conjuration, etc)
Crawford: The invisibility spell does keep going as long as whatever you're doing doesn't involve an attack or a spell.
Q: By "attack" you mean something involving an attack roll or any offensive action on a creature?
Crawford: Is something an attack? Yes, if (a) it involves an attack roll or (b) the rules expressly call it an attack.

My psychic powers enable me to predict that this will change no one's mind about anything

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Ooh nice! Can someone ask him about if a dragon's breath weapon would break Invisibility?

Actually, why wasn't that asked in the example? Missed a trick there!