D&D 5E "Attack" of the Invisible Dragons

[Sword of Spirit]

The fact that "attack" is jargon referring to actions that require an attack roll in 5e came up in my last session. I'm very familiar with the rule, but my group wasn't so keen on it, and I had a discussion with one of my friends about it later, thinking of ways it could be abused.

The abuse centers around the fact that there are ways of causing damage that have traditionally had drawbacks that don't in 5e due to the way this rule works. The one that came to my mind was how damaging, non-attack, non-spell abilities interact with the invisibility spell. Ie, they don't. A stealthy dragon could glide through the air, using it's breath weapon while gliding past invisibly (which doesn't break the spell), Hide when it's out of range, and glide back in for another blast, etc.

That's just the one example that I thought of, and I'm okay with the rule. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Got any? Got any reasons why they aren't as effective as they look?

 

[Leatherhead]

The main problem would be with how obtuse the stealth rules are.
As for the dragon, it's more or less obvious where a breath weapon is originating from, so being invisible would only grant people disadvantage on attack rolls against the dragon, and they would have a lot of area to aim at due to the dragon's size.

 

[abirdcall]

Greater Invisibility is in the game already so this sort of thing is not unheard of.

If you aren't happy with how Invisibility is worded you could add on the clause 'or a harmful ability or magical effect' like the Charmed condition does.

 

[Coroc]

I would rule zero that a breath attack by the dragon breaks the spell immediately no matter what RAW or RAI says.

 

[MarkB]

Bear in mind that the wording is "attacks", not "makes an attack roll". Firing a breath weapon at someone is definitely an attack.

 

[Hriston]

Use of the breath weapon doesn’t gain advantage from the dragon being unseen, so it’s fair that it doesn’t break invisibility. On the other hand, the hidden dragon gives away its position (becoming un-hidden) when it uses its breath weapon, and its location is known until it hides again on its next turn, so there’s that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Bear in mind that the wording is "attacks", not "makes an attack roll". Firing a breath weapon at someone is definitely an attack.

But that’s the point. The word “attack” in 5e D&D has a very precise meaning: something that involves an attack roll. If there is no attack roll, there is no “attack” and any feature that references an attack refers exclusively to an attack roll. That is stated design intent. (We can choose to ignore that, but then we have to make a bunch of rulings as far as how each individual case functions.)

 

[Oofta]

I rule that any action done to intentionally cause harm is an attack.

Just because a square is a rectangle does not mean that all rectangles are squares.

 

[Kurotowa]

But that’s the point. The word “attack” in 5e D&D has a very precise meaning: something that involves an attack roll.

That's 3e thinking, friend. In 5e the rules are less legalistic. Yes, some things have specific meanings, but not everything is that precise. Especially when you cross PC abilities (the Invisibility spell) with NPC abilities (offensive powers that aren't spells or attack rolls).

The RAI are pretty clear and I see no reason to flout them with an unnecessarily strict RAW reading.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The word “attack” in 5e D&D has a very precise meaning

Does any word in 5e have a very precise meaning? It's supposed to be written in a more natural-language style.

If 'attacking' someone breaks invisibility, then impugning their honor or dignity should be enough.