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

[Oofta]

I rule that the help action breaks invisibility, for purposes of the spell it is attacking. It is not an attack by the rules definition of attack because there is no intent to do damage. In addition, you can't help if you're invisible unless you are physically interfering with your target. But it's just my ruling, don't expect consensus on this.

 

[TheSword]

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.

I’m not reading your abbreviations right? RAF? [Edit] Ah you’ve Clarified

JC does not reference invisibility he’s referencing helping someone. When he references that attack in the invisibility spell specifically refers to the attack action then I’ll happily concede.

When helping involves hostile action at range such as has been suggested, I will rule that as an attack in the broader sense for the purposes of breaking invisibility as per the wording of the spell.

As I said. You do you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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?

(Emphasis mine) I never said it did. Did you read my post or gloss over it? It was pointing out the strict reading of the rules supports your position by showing an example where taking any action breaks the invisibility (for that feature only, mind you, just to be clear).

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Its a more appropriate title than the original, let me tell ya.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you're playing, discuss it with the DM and abide by their ruling.

That's the gist. I think they are looking for support and arguments to take to their DM (I could be wrong...).

 

[auburn2]

So a warlock can take Pact of The Chain to get an invisible familiar which against creatures that don’t have a blindsense or truesight means no AoO against them, can’t get killed by Magic Missile and sight based abilities. If you took a level of Cleric or Magic Initiate (Cleric/Artificier possibly) you then can cast sanctuary on your Familiar. Is there any buffs to have it not die as often in combat besides these?

I don't know about RAW but in the games I DM and in the games I play help breaks invisibility. That happens quite often in a game I DM with a player with a rogue-warlock with an imp familiar. The fact that the player never even questioned this or asked and assumed this was how it works makes me think that it is how it should be run in our games.

 

[TrueBagelMan]

I’m not reading your abbreviations right? RAF? [Edit] Ah you’ve Clarified

JC does not reference invisibility he’s referencing helping someone. When he references that attack in the invisibility spell specifically refers to the attack action then I’ll happily concede.

When helping involves hostile action at range such as has been suggested, I will rule that as an attack in the broader sense for the purposes of breaking invisibility as per the wording of the spell.

As I said. You do you.

I read it as Arcane Trickster uses owl familiar to use help action. Familiars can’t take attack actions. Therefore, transitive property would make it not be an attack action. But then again nothing is logical in DnD. A darkness spell can block a window and light would still go through.

 

[Oofta]

That's the gist. I think they are looking for support and arguments to take to their DM (I could be wrong...).

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.

Either the DM leans towards a literal interpretation of the rules or they follow a more naturalistic interpretation. Neither way is right or wrong, although I try to be consistent.

 

[Oofta]

...A darkness spell can block a window and light would still go through.

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.