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

[Ralif Redhammer]

A breath weapon is an attack, even if it's not an melee or spell attack. If a wizard were to cast fireball, that doesn't involve an attack roll but I think all but the most generous of DMs would rule that that ends invisibility.

Now, an airborne dragon with greater invisibility, yeah, that would be a terror.

 

[Nebulous]

I would rule zero that a breath attack by the dragon breaks the spell immediately no matter what RAW or RAI says.

Bear in mind that the wording is "attacks", not "makes an attack roll". Firing a breath weapon at someone is definitely an attack.

100% an attack. The most damaging, lethal attack a dragon has.

 

[Nebulous]

But that’s the point. The word “attack” in 5e D&D has a very precise meaning: something that involves an attack roll. If there is no attack roll, there is no “attack” and any feature that references an attack refers exclusively to an attack roll. That is stated design intent. (We can choose to ignore that, but then we have to make a bunch of rulings as far as how each individual case functions.)

By that logic, what happens when an invisible dragonborn uses its breath weapon. There's no "attack", just an action and a saving throw.

 

[Nebulous]

A breath weapon is an attack, even if it's not an melee or spell attack. If a wizard were to cast fireball, that doesn't involve an attack roll but I think all but the most generous of DMs would rule that that ends invisibility.

Now, and airborne dragon with greater invisibility, yeah, that would be a terror.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Nebulous]

Use of the breath weapon doesn’t gain advantage from the dragon being unseen, so it’s fair that it doesn’t break invisibility. On the other hand, the hidden dragon gives away its position (becoming un-hidden) when it uses its breath weapon, and its location is known until it hides again on its next turn, so there’s that.

You could argue that a breath weapon attack from an invisible dragon (even improved invisible) instills Disadvantage on the saves because you can't even see it coming.

 

[Hriston]

You could argue that a breath weapon attack from an invisible dragon (even improved invisible) instills Disadvantage on the saves because you can't even see it coming.

You could, but it seems a little disingenuous to do that just so you can justify having the breath weapon break invisibility.

 

[Nebulous]

Oh I think a breath weapon counts as an attack and will always break 2nd level invisibility. It's the 4th level improved invisible where the real trouble begins.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

face palm

I'm really surprised that this discussion about what constitutes an attack is happening. Maybe it has been too long since it's come up, but that has been extensively discussed. There is no question as the the official rule or designer intent.

PHB page 194: "If there's ever a question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Here's where you start thinking, "Yes, but that doesn't say that if you're making an attack you're necessarily making an attack roll!"

Here is a comment by the designer:

Here's where you start thinking, "Okay, but 'something the rules call an attack' seems vague. If the rules are clear that it's a hostile or damaging effect, that might qualify."

And here is a discussion where the designer completely clarifies that it works exactly way I mentioned in the OP:
Is Magic Missile an ‘attack’?

I'm really not interested in a debate about a settled question.

 

[Coroc]

face palm

I'm really surprised that this discussion about what constitutes an attack is happening. Maybe it has been too long since it's come up, but that has been extensively discussed. There is no question as the the official rule or designer intent.

PHB page 194: "If there's ever a question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

Here's where you start thinking, "Yes, but that doesn't say that if you're making an attack you're necessarily making an attack roll!"

Here is a comment by the designer:

Here's where you start thinking, "Okay, but 'something the rules call an attack' seems vague. If the rules are clear that it's a hostile or damaging effect, that might qualify."

And here is a discussion where the designer completely clarifies that it works exactly way I mentioned in the OP:
Is Magic Missile an ‘attack’?

I'm really not interested in a debate about a settled question.

Yes but please also quote
Jeremy Crawford:
"By rule, magic missile doesn't involve an attack, but as DM, you're empowered to ignore/change rules."

And i would just do that because it defies any logic not to do so, as would be the example with toppling something over, casting some area effect on whatever target, so someone takes damage in the moment the cast is done. Otherwise improved invisibility is worth only for melee attacks, with everything else a mage just can use the lower normal invisibility.

No offense, but some of his rules clarifications just make no sense and cause further confusion and rulius magistarius like discussions on the forums.
I mean, if you casting a spell it usually involves some kind of noise made by you incantating the formula so if that does not give away your position and breaks your invisibility?

 

[Hriston]

This keeps being brought up as a counter argument, so I’m just going to state the obvious: Casting a spell also breaks invisibility. So no, a wizard can’t cast fireball and remain invisible.