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

[TrueBagelMan]

Yes, and when you Help in combat, you aid another in attacking the target. "Attack" in this case is not game jargon referring only to the Attack action and the results thereof, but instead to things that would normally be considered attacking. Feinting, for instance, is an attack that's started and then stopped in order to confuse. Still, however, an attack.

Of course, what constitutes an attack is up to your GM. I think the wording of Help in combat is pretty clear that you're participating in an attack, though.

Can a familiar use Help to grant advantage at range?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.google.com

This sage advice proofs otherwise. If it counted as an attack action, then a familiar couldn’t use the help action at all. If a warlock used there action to have there familiar use it as an action, it would be similar to the Mastermind Rogue’s help at range except as an action with no range limit. Also how would a loud piercing scream next to someone’s ear not have them drop there guard for a second? The help action is only on one attack, so couldn’t someone time when the distraction is happening? It seems to make sense for a rogue as an example.

 

[TheSword]

Can a familiar use Help to grant advantage at range?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.google.com

This sage advice proofs otherwise. If it counted as an attack action, then a familiar couldn’t use the help action at all. If a warlock used there action to have there familiar use it as an action, it would be similar to the Mastermind Rogue’s help at range except as an action with no range limit.

No that isn’t proof at all.

Invisibility doesn’t require an attack action to end it. Just that the recipient attacks or casts a spell.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

No that isn’t proof at all.

Invisibility doesn’t require an attack action to end it. Just that the recipient attacks or casts a spell.

Except The sage advice means the help action isn’t an attack. I doubt one could argue that it would be a cast a spell action either.

 

[jmartkdr2]

No that isn’t proof at all.

Invisibility doesn’t require an attack action to end it. Just that the recipient attacks or casts a spell.

The Help action doesn't include an attack, though - there's no attack roll or special attack being made.

Unless you're ruling that any action that harms the enemy counts as an attack, but by that logic what can they do? Scouting them out is harmful to the enemy, after all.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

Except This means the help action isn’t an attack. I doubt one could argue that it would be a cast a spell action either.

No that isn’t proof at all.

Invisibility doesn’t require an attack action to end it. Just that the recipient attacks or casts a spell.

Invisibility.
The sprite magically turns invisible until IT attacks or casts a spell, or until its concentration ends (as if concentrating on a spell). Any equipment the sprite wears or carries is invisible with it.

RAW, this means that IT has to make an attack or cast a spell. Help action due to sage advice clearly is said by JC that it’s not an attack action otherwise why could a normal familiar use the help action?

 

[TheSword]

Except The sage advice means the help action isn’t an attack. I doubt one could argue that it would be a cast a spell action either.

Does the familiar not hunt, or eat, is it physically incapable of pecking something or just doesn’t do any damage. If an eagle familiar swoops down and grabs a mouse for dinner would you claim that doesn’t break invisibility either.

If it said attack action then you would be correct. However invisibility doesn’t reference that. It says attacks.

You do you though.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Does the familiar not hunt, or eat, is it physically incapable of pecking something or just doesn’t do any damage. If an eagle familiar swoops down and grabs a mouse for dinner would you claim that doesn’t break invisibility either.

If it said attack action then you would be correct. However invisibility doesn’t reference that. It says attacks.

You do you though.

Grabbing a mouse would be a grapple, which is a kind of Special Attack. So it would break invisibility at that point.

 

[TwoSix]

Nope you could yank someone’s coat, try and trip their feet, buffet their shoulder or swoop down and if an eagle you could swoop down and buffet your wings in their face...

... all those things would make you visible though.

I don’t believe a bad smell would make someone drop their guard in combat nor a loud noise. A fireball detonating doesn’t have that effect so why would a sprite shouting. Anything strong enough to do so would be an attack.

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.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

Grabbing a mouse would be a grapple, which is a kind of Special Attack. So it would break invisibility at that point.

Adding on to this, if the help action RAW is a special attack, why aren’t we seeing the Fighter use the help action as and attack with extra attack? The shove action works likes this. I want to say grappling is the same, but I’m not sure since I have never built a grappling PC.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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:

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.