Distract drop invisibility?

[Arial Black]

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


The 5E version:

[/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.

Thanks for posting this. The trouble with playing lots of previous editions is that you mix up all your previous versions.

Even so, I remember a 3.5 Sage Advice which said that, due to the wording, if you have detect magic running then your invisibility pops if it catches an enemy (and I don't think that detecting magic matches the 'natural language' definition of 'attack') and the spell reads your mind to find out who is your friend and who is your enemy.

Meanwhile, the 5e version is clear and concise, as long as you believe that JC meant what he wrote! That is, both 'attack' and 'cast a spell' mean the rules definition of those terms.

If only JC himself would supply this specific answer...

 

[Arial Black]

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

...And he has!

Could anyone now doubt that it has to meet the game definition of 'attack': uses an attack roll or is specifically written as counting as an attack, like shove/grapple?

 

[Arial Black]

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

Didn't take long, did it?

"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."

Asked and answered. Does dragon breath use an attack roll? Is it expressly called an attack?

No and no. Therefore, dragon breath is not an attack (game definition) and does not pop invisibility (which uses the game definition according to JC himself)!

If you imagine that JC does think that any offensive action pops invisibility, and wrote that answer instead of "Yes, any offensive action pops invisibility", then you are delusional!

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Didn't take long, did it?

"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."

Asked and answered. Does dragon breath use an attack roll? Is it expressly called an attack?

No and no. Therefore, dragon breath is not an attack (game definition) and does not pop invisibility (which uses the game definition according to JC himself)!

So he clarified what an 'attack' is by way of the rules. RAW Great! I think most of us kinda knew this already, but hey.

What I'm asking for is a clarification of intent. Is he ok with a dragon's breath attack not breaking Invisibility or Sanctuary? How would he rule it at his table? Does it match the intent of the spell he designed (well, ok, he translated to 5E, but still.)


--

And to carry on reading the Dragon entry further, we find:

Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities.

Breath weapon. I'm not attacking you with my weapon. I'm using it! Logic vs semantics? I wonder..

--

A blue dragon is a patient and methodical combatant. When fighting on its own terms, it turns combat into an extended affair of hours or even days, attacking from a distance with volleys of lightning, then flying well out of harm's reach as it waits to attack again.

Now, the only way a blue dragon can attack from a distance with volleys of lightning is with its breath weapon. Is this still not an attack?

--

So yes, how would he rule things? What is his RAI (and while we're at it, his RAF) take on the matter? And final ruling for his table?

 

[Arial Black]

So he clarified what an 'attack' is by way of the rules. RAW Great! I think most of us kinda knew this already, but hey.

What I'm asking for is a clarification of intent. Is he ok with a dragon's breath attack not breaking Invisibility or Sanctuary? How would he rule it at his table? Does it match the intent of the spell he designed (well, ok, he translated to 5E, but still.)


--

And to carry on reading the Dragon entry further, we find:

Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities.

Breath weapon. I'm not attacking you with my weapon. I'm using it! Logic vs semantics? I wonder..

--

A blue dragon is a patient and methodical combatant. When fighting on its own terms, it turns combat into an extended affair of hours or even days, attacking from a distance with volleys of lightning, then flying well out of harm's reach as it waits to attack again.

Now, the only way a blue dragon can attack from a distance with volleys of lightning is with its breath weapon. Is this still not an attack?

--

So yes, how would he rule things? What is his RAI (and while we're at it, his RAF) take on the matter? And final ruling for his table?

He is asked, "Is Invisibility spell broken by using a class/race feature that doesn't involve a spell? (Psionics, Minor Conjuration, etc)", like, y'know, the race feature 'breath weapon'?

He answers: "The invisibility spell does keep going as long as whatever you're doing doesn't involve an attack or a spell", meaning that these things will not pop invisibility unless they are one or the other.

Seeking clarification on whether he means 'attack' as the rules definition (attack roll/expressly called an attack) OR as natural language (any offensive action), he is asked, "By "attack" you mean something involving an attack roll or any offensive action on a creature?"

Providing clarification, he states which of the two meanings of 'attack' pops invisibility, "Is something an attack? Yes, if (a) it involves an attack roll or (b) the rules expressly call it an attack".

His intent is absolutely clear!

 

[jaelis]

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!

Just to be clear, that is an old response from a couple years ago. (Not something I asked about in connection with our discussion.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

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!

Crawford will say it is not an attack. I would have made a bet he'd say the above, too. Crawford only says what the rules say, RAW only, and not any RAI. If the rules do something wonky, that's what he'll say. It's a good check on what's in the rules, but not necessarily on what good rulings are.

 

[Arial Black]

Just to be clear, that is an old response from a couple years ago.

It also has to be said that neither the rules definition of 'attack' nor the description of the invisibility spell (and what pops it) has changed in that time. Therefore, what he said then remains valid now.

 

[Arial Black]

Crawford will say it is not an attack. I would have made a bet he'd say the above, too. Crawford only says what the rules say, RAW only, and not any RAI. If the rules do something wonky, that's what he'll say. It's a good check on what's in the rules, but not necessarily on what good rulings are.

Fair enough in a thread asking what the rules are re: help action popping invisibility.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Fair enough in a thread asking what the rules are re: help action popping invisibility.

Well aye, and especially as the OP was asking with regards to AL, which my understanding is all about the RAW!*

I do love JC's work, though his stubborn refusal to grow a beard along with Mearls is disconcerting.

By RAW, I like to think we know the answer. I can parse a text and follow the letter of the law as much as the next guy/gal/misc.

RAI though - can we all kinda agree that, ya know, those dragons and them breath weapons? The ones they're using to attack from a distance? Proooobably should break Invisibility.

I have some very concerned dragons that need to know!

*Granted, the OP was about 'distract' but hey and I've now seemingly become obsessed with dragons and their breath weapons.