Distract drop invisibility?

[Ovinomancer]

Very true, it is not the end of the world. And I already know about the designer's intent on 5e - both what you stated, "rulings over rules", and the like... though I still think that with those in mind it doesn't imply they meant the help action to be constituted as an attack (that's RAI again mind you, nothing wrong with you ruling otherwise as a DM). And your post does clarify your intent, as I genuinely didn't know if you were fighting for a RAI argument or not.

What are you helping with? An attack? Okay, you help make an attack.

The bits about feinting, or yelling, or whatever are fluff. What you do is help your ally make an attack.

As for the dragon, I'm with [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] on being a bit shocked that someone would rather say 'but the rules don't explicitly call it an attack and there's no attack roll so it's not an attack' rather than go with the obvious results of 'well, yeah, of course it's an attack.' I can see the former, but I just don't get the mindset that would rather be hidebound to their interpretation of the rules and create this strange chimera of rule interactions rather than get to the obvious, common sense result. I'd have done that in my formative years, when I thought the rules were intentional and good and without the possibility of mistakes, but now? Nope, and I don't understand arguing over multiple pages trying to get someone else to explain why they wouldn't play hidebound to rules that create nonsense.

By all means, play your way, but were I a player in a game where a dragon used it's breath weapons and stayed invisible because it wasn't an attack, I'd pack up and leave. Not because that issue was unacceptable, but because the mindset it reveals isn't something I want to deal with anymore.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

What are you helping with? An attack? Okay, you help make an attack.

The bits about feinting, or yelling, or whatever are fluff. What you do is help your ally make an attack.
...

You are so close but not quite there.

What you do is help ...

Yes! That is what YOU are doing! Using the HELP action. Good so far.

...your ally make an attack.

Again, right on the nose! Your ALLY is making an ATTACK. Great!

There is no equivalence between the two. You're HELPING. They're ATTACKING. Two different things.

If your idea of helping is actually something that inflicts damage, or some sort of penalizing condition, on your Ally's target, then that's not helping. That's attacking, too. Your help action really has no direct effect on the target. It just gives your Ally a bit of an advantage in attacking the target.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Have you thought about posting on sage advice to see what JC would say specifically about this?

Already posted by me in #24:

As far as for what Crawford has said about attacks: "An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving." Personally, I don't put much stock in Crawford's answers because they often seem to result in very unrealistic results. I only use them when I don't know how to rule.

I still say that saying, "I use the Help action to grant advantage on the next attack roll," alone isn't enough when you're invisible, because a distraction while you're invisible is a non-trivial task. Describe how you're trying to distract the creature and then rule on whether or not it's an attack.

 

[Satyrn]

I still say that saying, "I use the Help action to grant advantage on the next attack roll," alone isn't enough when you're invisible.

This thread has convinced me that saying "I use the Help action to grant advantage on the next attack roll," isn't enough even when your visible.

I am gonna insist on describing something specific. I mean, I already ask my players to do so, but sometimes we get lazy or tired and want to skip past it, but yeah. I'm gonna require it now.

 

[jaelis]

What are you helping with? An attack? Okay, you help make an attack.

The bits about feinting, or yelling, or whatever are fluff. What you do is help your ally make an attack.

As for the dragon, I'm with [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] on being a bit shocked that someone would rather say 'but the rules don't explicitly call it an attack and there's no attack roll so it's not an attack' rather than go with the obvious results of 'well, yeah, of course it's an attack.' I can see the former, but I just don't get the mindset that would rather be hidebound to their interpretation of the rules and create this strange chimera of rule interactions rather than get to the obvious, common sense result. I'd have done that in my formative years, when I thought the rules were intentional and good and without the possibility of mistakes, but now? Nope, and I don't understand arguing over multiple pages trying to get someone else to explain why they wouldn't play hidebound to rules that create nonsense.

By all means, play your way, but were I a player in a game where a dragon used it's breath weapons and stayed invisible because it wasn't an attack, I'd pack up and leave. Not because that issue was unacceptable, but because the mindset it reveals isn't something I want to deal with anymore.

It is unacceptable to have a mind set that "when the rules refer to an attack, they are referencing a specific game definition of what attacks means"? That is nonsense. If you play this game, you use that kind of mind set constantly. If you choose not to use it specifically in this instance, fine. But castigating anyone who recognizes that the rules do involve something other than natural language is ridiculous.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

But the invisibility spell in not cancelled by the target taking 'active hostile action' (not a game term), it is cancelled if the target 'attacks' (game term) or 'casts a spell' (game term).

So in your game, none of the following cancel the invisibility spell?
- Vampire charm.
- A fireball from a necklace or fireballs.
- A lightning strike from a staff of thunder and lightning.
- A dragonborn PC's breath weapon.
- A dragon's wing attack.
- A balor's fire aura.
- Damage.from the spirit guardians spell.
- A solar's searing burst.
- A gelatinous cube's engulf.

Have I got that right?

 

[jaelis]

So in your game, none of the following cancel the invisibility spell?
- Vampire charm.
- A fireball from a necklace or fireballs.
- A lightning strike from a staff of thunder and lightning.
- A dragonborn PC's breath weapon.
- A dragon's wing attack.
- A balor's fire aura.
- Damage.from the spirit guardians spell.
- A solar's searing burst.
- A gelatinous cube's engulf.

Have I got that right?

I guess my answers will be similar to Arial's:
- Vampire charm: no, it only works if the target can see the vampire
- A fireball from a necklace or fireballs: debatable, are you casting a spell here?
- A lightning strike from a staff of thunder and lightning: correct
- A dragonborn PC's breath weapon: correct
- A dragon's wing attack: correct
- A balor's fire aura: correct
- Damage.from the spirit guardians spell: correct (of course the spells must be cast in the right order)
- A solar's searing burst: correct
- A gelatinous cube's engulf: correct

I think all those abilities that I would say work with invisibility have the feature that they don't require a specific target. Would you say that a balor can never use invisibility, because its fire aura is always active? Even if there are no enemies around?

Ooh, what about this: my rogue is invisible, sneaking around, and he steps on a bug. Is that an attack? Does it matter if he does it deliberately?

 

[Oofta]

So in your game, none of the following cancel the invisibility spell?
- Vampire charm.
- A fireball from a necklace or fireballs.
- A lightning strike from a staff of thunder and lightning.
- A dragonborn PC's breath weapon.
- A dragon's wing attack.
- A balor's fire aura.
- Damage.from the spirit guardians spell.
- A solar's searing burst.
- A gelatinous cube's engulf.

Have I got that right?

You forgot the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Although I guess the necklace of fireballs is close. It doesn't state you are casting a spell, unlike most wands or staves so it would not qualify.

You would also have to add in grapple, shove/knock prone, lots and lots of monster attacks like an ankheg's acid spit, an air elemental's wind charge, so on and so forth.

I understand that help is a judgment call. But these others? Really? I guess they're being consistent.

 

[jaelis]

Grapples and shoves are called out as attacks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are so close but not quite there.


Yes! That is what YOU are doing! Using the HELP action. Good so far.


Again, right on the nose! Your ALLY is making an ATTACK. Great!

There is no equivalence between the two. You're HELPING. They're ATTACKING. Two different things.

If your idea of helping is actually something that inflicts damage, or some sort of penalizing condition, on your Ally's target, then that's not helping. That's attacking, too. Your help action really has no direct effect on the target. It just gives your Ally a bit of an advantage in attacking the target.

You seem to think this is clever. It's not, as helping is intrinsically tired to the action your helping. You can't help by yourself. You hemp someone else do something. "Help", by itself, is nonsense.