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

[TrueBagelMan]

BTW: if the OP posts a question and then responds to everyone who disagrees with "you're wrong, I'm right" why even bother posting? If you've already made up you mind on how to rule when you're running a game, rule that way. If you're playing, discuss it with the DM and abide by their ruling.

And this is why the Thread is supposed to be dead. Because it’s all pointless arguments that in the end boils down to all are time wasted with no one moving an inch.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

It wouldn't work that way in my game. Darkness is evocation, not illusion. It is magically absorbing all the photons in it; if it didn't it would be transparent which makes no sense.

Technically RAW, but I totally agree with you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But it ultimately comes down to a simple ruling. It's not an "attack" as defined by the rules because there's no attack roll, damage or direct effect of the action. However given the non-technical language used in 5E, I think any aggressive action meant to harm someone else (even indirectly) qualifies as an attack.

True, but like you said the literal (or "strict" as I like to call it) ruling is the imp stays invisible.

Neither way is right or wrong, although I try to be consistent.

Always the best advice for every DM IMO!

 

[Dausuul]

By RAW, I suppose it is legit for the familiar to do this.

My personal ruling would be that if you take the Help action, it breaks invisibility if the thing you're helping with would break invisibility. So you can Help with a skill check and you're fine, but Helping with an attack renders you visible.

I'm not sure how you could Help with casting a spell, but if you come up with a way to do it, that also will make you visible.

 

[jmartkdr2]

BTW: if the OP posts a question and then responds to everyone who disagrees with "you're wrong, I'm right" why even bother posting? If you've already made up you mind on how to rule when you're running a game, rule that way. If you're playing, discuss it with the DM and abide by their ruling.

I would guess they wanted to make sure they're reading the rules right and didn't miss anything. This was pretty important in earlier editions where the rules were more scattered. (I've been reading up on PF2 lately and it's bringing back those memories.) Other people chiming in with houserules are just sort of tangential, and the ones arguing that the initial reading is incorrect by RAW aren't making a good case (in OP's opinion) for why it isn't.

At least, that's what the context would be if I posted a question like OP's - it's intended as a check on the reading, not a survey of houserules or a debate about how well the rule is written in the first place.

The latter, of course, is a perfectly normal derailment of the thread around here, but that can be interesting by itself. I agree it feels cheesy to have nearly continuous advantage from an invisible imp, both narratively (how many effective invisible pranks can it really pull off?) and given the number of monsters who couldn't easily deal with it, (unless they're spellcasters) but I also agree it's legal if you want to stick to the books / a houserule to not allow it.

 

[TheSword]

Any time people think they’ve found an amazing trick that grants them something very good at none or little coat, I usually find a way to rain on the parade. The universe is all about opposing forces

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Which is the reason that the whole help action doesn't really make much sense. What is a thing thing that anyone can always do, without a fail, that is more distracting than whacking someone with an axe, but still is not an any kind of an attack?

 

[DND_Reborn]

And this is why the Thread is supposed to be dead. Because it’s all pointless arguments that in the end boils down to all are time wasted with no one moving an inch.

Just because a number of people oppose the position doesn't mean the thread should die. If that was the case, this forum would probably not even exist.

I know a lot of your threads are about rulings and combinations of things you seem to want to be able to do in your game. That's great! I just posted about having familiars being able to allow a second concentration. Some people like the idea, others don't. No big deal, I get their input either way, even if I don't agree with it.

Simple point: are you the DM? Then rule it as you want. If you aren't the DM, make your case to them with the information people have expressed here and ask for their ruling, and learn to live with it even if you don't like it. That failing, find a new DM.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

I would guess they wanted to make sure they're reading the rules right and didn't miss anything. Other people chiming in with houserules are just sort of tangential, and the ones arguing that the initial reading is incorrect by RAW aren't making a good case (in OP's opinion) for why it isn't.

At least, that's what the context would be if I posted a question like OP's - it's intended as a check on the reading, not a survey of houserules or a debate about how well the rule is written in the first place.

The latter being a perfectly normal derailment of the thread around here, but that can be interesting by itself. I agree it feels cheesy to have nearly continuous advantage from an invisible imp, both narratively (how many effective invisible pranks can it really pull off?) and given the number of monsters who couldn't easily deal with it, (unless they're spellcasters) but I also agree it's legal if you want to stick to the books / a houserule to not allow it.

The whole point of this thread was that the DM already made his mind up and I was trying to figure out how to make sure it doesn’t die I got as far as my own suggestion and someone saying DS sorcerer to make it slightly better.

 

[Oofta]

Technically by a strict reading of the rules "The imp magically turns invisible until it attacks" does not say "until it makes an attack". The word "attacks" is defined by the DM "makes an attack" is a game term.

Which yes, now I'm just having fun and seeing how much I can twist the words around.