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

[Sword of Spirit]

I want to apologize for my exasperated response, especially if anyone took it personally. I was just feeling frustrated that I wanted to discuss the ramifications of the official rules, and taking a step back to clarify what they were was getting in the way.

 

[Oofta]

I want to apologize for my exasperated response, especially if anyone took it personally. I was just feeling frustrated that I wanted to discuss the ramifications of the official rules, and taking a step back to clarify what they were was getting in the way.

HOW DARE YOU TELL ME ... oh wait. Never mind.

This is an edge case in the rules if you run strictly RAW. A dragon's breath is obviously an attack in common language, but not strictly defined that way in the rules because there is no attack roll. Nor is it a spell.

But rulings over rules, natural language instead of strictly defined gamer speak, blah, blah, blah.

 

[77IM]

By a strict reading of the rules, @Sword of Spirit is correct, a dragon's breath weapon (despite being called a weapon) is neither attack nor spell and thus does not break invisibility.

Here are some ways the players can abuse this loophole:

• Racial features: dragonborn's Breath Weapon.
• Class features: barbarian's Intimidating Presence, bard's Cutting Words, cleric's Turn Undead and Destroy Undead, light cleric's Radiance of the Dawn, tempest cleric's Wrath of the Storm, four elements monk's Fist of Unbroken Air and Water Whip, warlock patron's capstone abilities, enchantment wizard's Hypnotic Gaze, and probably a bunch more in Xanathar's etc.
• Equipment: bombs, dynamite, and grenades (in the DMG). These don't require an attack roll, surprisingly. The PHB items (acid, alchemists' fire, etc.) all require attack rolls.
• Magic items: bag of beans, bead of force, Daern's instant fortress, decanter of endless water, dust of sneezing and choking, iron flask, javelin of lightning, mace of terror, pipes of haunting, potion of fire breath, robe of scintillating colors, rod of rulership, rod of entanglement, staff of power/magi, staff of thunder and lightning, talisman of pure good/ultimate evil, wand of fear, wand of wonder (certain options). Probably some more that I missed.

These are all harmful effects that don't require an attack roll or a the casting of a spell.

 

[77IM]

Everybody (players and DMs) should carefully consider whether they want to participate in a game that relies on technicalities and loopholes like this. Some people really enjoy it -- it gets kind of like a puzzle, and it allows rules-savvy players to predict the outcomes of their decisions. OTOH, it can break immersion, and it actually makes it harder for non-rules-savvy players to predict the outcomes of their decisions.

I think one of the problems with 5E is that it tries to straddle the line and have it both ways. It feels like they tried to write it in "natural language" but then at the last minute decided to precisely define things like the terminating conditions of invisibility. I can understand the desire for clarity, as the edge cases of magic spells can lead to some absurd situations. (In one of the Forgotten Realms novels a row of invisible trees is rigged to collapse on an approaching army as part of an ambush. When the trees begin falling, they become weapons used in an attack, and thus become visible.) But part of the promise of 5E was that edge-cases like this would be put explicitly under the DM's discretion.

There are other spells that reference "harmful effects." For example, a lot of enchantment spells break or allow a new save "if you or your allies do anything harmful to the target." I swear I've also seen an invisibility-like effect that ended if you "attack, deal damage, or cause a creature to making a saving throw," but now I can't find it. My advice would be to patch invisibility to use language like this, on the grounds that this is how the spell is intended to work.

 

[Nebulous]

There are other spells that reference "harmful effects." For example, a lot of enchantment spells break or allow a new save "if you or your allies do anything harmful to the target." I swear I've also seen an invisibility-like effect that ended if you "attack, deal damage, or cause a creature to making a saving throw," but now I can't find it. My advice would be to patch invisibility to use language like this, on the grounds that this is how the spell is intended to work.

It would be interesting to see a poll of how many people would allow/disallow the things mentioned above as invisibility-breaking or not in their campaigns.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I swear I've also seen an invisibility-like effect that ended if you "attack, deal damage, or cause a creature to making a saving throw," but now I can't find it. My advice would be to patch invisibility to use language like this, on the grounds that this is how the spell is intended to work.

I have the same recollection. There is something like that in the latest abomination of a UA on Psionics.

That makes me wonder if writing up new abilities using that language is perhaps saying, "okay, so this is how we would have phrased it at the start if it occurred to us". They seem to have done something like that with shapechanging things, where the new spells in XGtE only allow changing into things with CR =< 1/2 level, rather than full CR = level.

If that's the case, it kind of leaves us in the position of deciding whether we want to go with the published (and not errataed) original, or with the "revised intent" of later products. I'm undecided.