D&D 5E Arguments about if the help action breaks invisibility. This is the second title. A third title, Thread = Dead.

[TheSword]

You're free to rule as you wish in your game, of course, but the fact that the Help action to grant advantage in combat is specifically not an attack has been a long settled issue, rules-wise. Basically, you're saying that the word "attack" in the Invisibility description isn't the game mechanic term, it's a broader natural language usage indicating any action that might hinder or inconvenience the target.

I personally don't agree, and if my DM ruled that way, I would be disappointed and ask for the opportunity to rechoose my Pact. The invisible familiar granting advantage is the primary mechanical benefit of Pact of the Chain.

If a person spits in another persons face, is that an attack? If a person pushes a lever on a scorpion that causes a bolt to fly down a corridor impaling someone out of an onrushing mob, is that an attack? Is pushing a Boulder off a city wall onto someone an attack?

I would happily rule that all of these are attacks in the broader sense, and yes would break invisibility even though I don’t believe they would need an attack action.

Invisibility has to view attack in the broader sense otherwise it is too easy for players to gimp.

If you want to use your familiar this way, hope for a generous DM.

 

[TwoSix]

If a person spits in another persons face, is that an attack? If a person pushes a lever on a scorpion that causes a bolt to fly down a corridor impaling someone out of an onrushing mob, is that an attack? Is pushing a Boulder off a city wall onto someone an attack?

No, probably no (would depend on the exact rules for siege weapons), and no.

If you want to use your familiar this way, hope for a generous DM.

Why would a DM want to be otherwise?

 

[TrueBagelMan]

Just to be clear to @TrueBagelMan , for myself (and I think the others... I could be wrong) I am saying that taking the Help action while Invisible would do one of two things:

1. the target can't see you, so you aren't really distracting it
2. anything you did that was "strong enough" to distract it, would constitute the same level of interaction as attacking, and thus end the invisibility.

I would rule as such, personally, but that is my preference. If I played at a table and they went with a more "precise" (?) interpretation, that is fine as well.

-------

Now, strictly speaking, the terminology is precisely as you say and I think JC would rule likewise: The Help Action is not the Attack action or Cast a Spell action, thus you would remain invisible.

Many features can cause a creature to become invisible, and they remain so until they do something specific. Consider the following:

View attachment 124712
You become invisible until you MOVE or TAKE AN ACTION or a REACTION. If this warlock took the Help action, they would become visible.

So, by common ruling no, the familiar would not become visible by using the Help action.

One with the Shadows states that it breaks if any of those conditions are met, that doesn’t apply to all invisibility. Also how does a loud screech from a Imp is not distracting?

 

[TheSword]

One with the Shadows states that it breaks if any of those conditions are met, that doesn’t apply to all invisibility. Also how does a loud screech from a Imp is not distracting?

Is it more distracting than being stabbed by someone’s sword? Because that doesn’t grant advantage on another attack?

 

[TheSword]

No, probably no (would depend on the exact rules for siege weapons), and no.


Why would a DM want to be otherwise?

Because people take advantage to do things like this. Firm but fair.

 

[bedir than]

I think we're seeing the difference between a character attacking and a character taking the Attack action.

Natural language versus the rules as written is what's causing the disagreement. While the Help action is not an Attack action, it can involve an attack.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

Is it more distracting than being stabbed by someone’s sword? Because that doesn’t grant advantage on another attack?

RAW and RAI due to JC in SA says that it works like this, but your RAF is different from mine so let’s all agree to RAW and RAI this works, but like every rule in the book is an idea, and if for what the reason is, you can throw it out into the composter and modify it to are liking.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I gotta admit I like a thread that has the world "argument" right there in the title.

EDIT:

But to address the topic, the "help" action could be shouting "Noonan!" in the target's ear just before the attack.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think we're seeing the difference between a character attacking and a character taking the Attack action.

Natural language versus the rules as written is what's causing the disagreement. While the Help action is not an Attack action, it can involve an attack.

It's muddier than that - there are several way to specifically "make an attack" in the rules that are called out as "making an attack" that don't involve the attack action - Opportunity Attacks are the most common, but there's a few others from specific features. There's even situations where making an attack doesn't involve an attack roll, which are referred to as Special Attacks, but the rules specifically point out that those are attacks.

So it's really arguing that the game term "make an attack" is not being referenced when a spell's rules uses the term "make an attack".

So then, to say that helping, when applied to an attack, counts as making an attack, you'd need to argue that making an attack isn't the same as making an attack, and that the spell specifically means version two of that phrase.

Now, overall if you feel that invisibility is a little to powerful overall and want to define it as breaking on any aggressive action - that's not exactly crazy talk, but reading the rules that way seems a little unnatural compared to how the rest of the rules are written.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

RAW and RAI due to JC in SA says that it works like this, but your RAF is different from mine so let’s all agree to RAW and RAI this works, but like every rule in the book is an idea, and if for what the reason is, you can throw it out into the composter and modify it to are liking.

RAW is Rules as Written
RAI is the name of a spice probably and Rules as Intended.
JC is Jeremy Crawford
SA is Sneak Attack and in this case Sage Advice.
RAF is Rules as fun. All DMs play by this unless they are in adventure’s league.