Distract drop invisibility?

[Arial Black]

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.

No I don't agree, and here's why: there is nothing in myth or legend about invisible creatures losing their magical invisibility by attacking. It is only a D&D game artifact!

Or, it was a game artifact! Now, the only game artifacts that pop invisibility are (game definition) 'attack' and 'cast spell'. 'Breath weapon' is not a game artifact that pops the spell, therefore the fact that it doesn't is not something that is missing from the game, as it was never in 5e, never in stories about invisible creatures, so there is nothing to suggest that breath weapons aught to pop the spell.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

His intent is absolutely clear!

Agreed. A dragonborn's breath weapon is not an attack, so it doesn't break invisibility, is not affected by sanctuary, and does not maintain barbarian rage.

I disagree with him, but that is a rule for my table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agreed. A dragonborn's breath weapon is not an attack, so it doesn't break invisibility, is not affected by sanctuary, and does not maintain barbarian rage.

I disagree with him, but that is a rule for my table.

Why would you use a rule you disagree with?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Why would you use a rule you disagree with?

Sorry about that, I got halfway through editing the sentence and got distracted, leaving bad phrasing.

The rule at my table is, "A dragonborn's breath weapon is an attack."

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rule at my table is, "A dragonborn's breath weapon is an attack."

Ah, okay, I didn't follow you in your post. I see what you meant, now. My bad.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

No I don't agree, and here's why: there is nothing in myth or legend about invisible creatures losing their magical invisibility by attacking.

Ya see, this I can get behind - its your take on RAI.

Personally I reckon there's got to be at least one magical creature that loses its Invisibility when it attacks in myth or legend but hey, if that's what you want to go with..

The rest, again, is RAW.

Well, it is what is is - for some a a dragon would need Greater Invisibility to attack and cast spells but only Invisibility to attack with their breath weapon, RAI.

 

[Harzel]

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."

And yet for some reason (or no reason?), just as in the PHB he either refuses or neglects to add the 1-3 words that would completely and utterly put the matter to rest. Make that "if" into "just if" or "exactly if" or tack "otherwise, no" onto the end and all doubt is removed.

I don't begrudge anyone inferring that the addition of those words expresses JC's intent, but it does strike me as a bit ironic that this appeals to an informal, idiomatic reading of JC's statement in order to construct a very exacting and "gamey" rule that will send us frequently scurrying back to the rule books to check whether something is a spell or only a spell-like effect because the distinction has no conceptual referent in the fiction. Again, I'm not saying this is wrong; it just strikes me as a weird juxtaposition of reasoning styles and questioning it doesn't seem unreasonable.

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

No and no.

Agreed.

Therefore, dragon breath is not an attack (game definition)

I know I am essentially repeating myself, but strictly on the basis of logic, your conclusion does not follow from JC's statement and those answers ("No and no.") It requires an additional inference about JC's statement.

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!

Your degree of investment in ensuring that people who do not share your point of view know they are wrong is certainly exceptional.

I could just as reasonably say, if you imagine that JC meant that (your interpretation) and yet neglected to add the 1-3 words that would have said that clearly, then you are delusional. However, just to be clear, I do not think that you are delusional - just a bit overwrought.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

And yet for some reason (or no reason?), just as in the PHB he either refuses or neglects to add the 1-3 words that would completely and utterly put the matter to rest. Make that "if" into "just if" or "exactly if" or tack "otherwise, no" onto the end and all doubt is removed.

I don't begrudge anyone inferring that the addition of those words expresses JC's intent, but it does strike me as a bit ironic that this appeals to an informal, idiomatic reading of JC's statement in order to construct a very exacting and "gamey" rule that will send us frequently scurrying back to the rule books to check whether something is a spell or only a spell-like effect because the distinction has no conceptual referent in the fiction. Again, I'm not saying this is wrong; it just strikes me as a weird juxtaposition of reasoning styles and questioning it doesn't seem unreasonable.

To be fair, with regards to RAI, one thing that needs to remembered is that 5th edition is an update as much as an original work. There are many aspects of spells, classes and rules artifacts have been included for as much as 'legacy' and to maintain familiarity.

As such, trying to assess the intent of the design of say, Invisibility - how far back do we go? The first printing? Is this where the 'intent' of the spell can be found? Do we try to understand the intent of the original designer? Or perhaps we focus on the author's intent today? Something else?

With this in mind, JC updated and translated the spells (or he did, as far as I know) but it was never 'his' spell originally. Perhaps he simply wanted to update and translate the spell into 5E editions terms. This can be done without him having any particular desire to produce anything other than the technical. Or perhaps he did have his own intent, a desire to update and modify Invisibility to create a spell which amongst other things allows dragons to remain Invisible while attacking with their breath weapons.

Or perhaps, like a copy of a copy of a copy, some resolution was lost.

I'm fine with that to be honest. This is where the DM comes in as the 'Keeper of the Rules' - if the table/DM has issue of course - catch any perceived kinks and iron them out.

 

[jaelis]

And yet for some reason (or no reason?), just as in the PHB he either refuses or neglects to add the 1-3 words that would completely and utterly put the matter to rest. Make that "if" into "just if" or "exactly if" or tack "otherwise, no" onto the end and all doubt is removed.

I don't begrudge anyone inferring that the addition of those words expresses JC's intent, but it does strike me as a bit ironic that this appeals to an informal, idiomatic reading of JC's statement in order to construct a very exacting and "gamey" rule that will send us frequently scurrying back to the rule books to check whether something is a spell or only a spell-like effect because the distinction has no conceptual referent in the fiction. Again, I'm not saying this is wrong; it just strikes me as a weird juxtaposition of reasoning styles and questioning it doesn't seem unreasonable.

See, words are pretty slippery things. I doubt there is any short statement Jeremy or the rules could make that couldn't be quibbled with on some kind of grounds. It's just a question of how many people will accept the quibble.


Like say he wrote "if and only if". Then all you have to do is find one of the numerous places in the book where it doesn't use "attack" in exactly that sense, and now you've proven that he is mistaken and you can ignore him.


But what interests me is if you're applying this kind of reasoning consistently. Would you let a dragon breathe on an opportunity attack? Would you let magic missile pop a mirror image? If not then I think you are using quibbles to defend the outcome you want, not actually interpreting the rules themselves.

 

[Ovinomancer]

See, words are pretty slippery things. I doubt there is any short statement Jeremy or the rules could make that couldn't be quibbled with on some kind of grounds. It's just a question of how many people will accept the quibble.


Like say he wrote "if and only if". Then all you have to do is find one of the numerous places in the book where it doesn't use "attack" in exactly that sense, and now you've proven that he is mistaken and you can ignore him.


But what interests me is if you're applying this kind of reasoning consistently. Would you let a dragon breathe on an opportunity attack? Would you let magic missile pop a mirror image? If not then I think you are using quibbles to defend the outcome you want, not actually interpreting the rules themselves.

Not quite. The dragon breath example fails due to OAs being melee attacks. The Mirror Image one is less clear, but can still be supported by the fact that choosing a target is unaffected by mirror image, and magic missile always strikes it's target. That could go the other way, and, in fact, I allow Mirror Image to interact with Magic Missile in exactly that way.