Distract drop invisibility?

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, the 'aid a friendly creature in attacking a friendly creature' part? Let me check the Invisibility spell ... 'The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell.' I don't see anything about the spell ending when aiding someone in an attack. In basketball a player who assists on a FG doesn't get credit for the basket, after all.

You are so close but not quite there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm very happy to hear things explained, and I need to say thanks to Oofta and others for their efforts in that.

I don't feel any need to be patient with hypocritical claims about what tables aren't worth playing at.

Unless you're imagining what I've said again, I think you've misused "hypocritical" pretty badly, here.

Also, I never claimed your table wasn't worth playing at. I said I wouldn't play at that table if this ruling came up. Do you see the difference? It's where I say what I would do, and don't make claims for what others would do or enjoy. To be perfectly frank, I'm peachy you rule the way you do -- variety is the spice of the hobby, after all. I'm not the least bit upset we have different approaches to this issue. True, I no longer understand why someone would choose to view the rules in a way that adds exploitable holes that defy common sense just because the can be read that way, but that's my problem, not yours.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

You are so close but not quite there.

I'll guess we'll agree to disagree, then.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll guess we'll agree to disagree, then.

Amicably, even!

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

TIL: If it looks like an attack, sounds like an attack and moves like attack it is not an attack because the text doesn't specifically state it is an attack.

BRB - Dragon breath'ing a few more villages. Cease fire? Truce? Ha! It is was it is - and that's not an attack! It's just well calculate collateral damage! BUUUUUURRRNNN!

 

[Oofta]

TIL: If it looks like an attack, sounds like an attack and moves like attack it is not an attack because the text doesn't specifically state it is an attack.

BRB - Dragon breath'ing a few more villages. Cease fire? Truce? Ha! It is was it is - and that's not an attack! It's just well calculate collateral damage! BUUUUUURRRNNN!

Right. An attack is an attack, but an attack is not an attack unless it's an attack. And heaven forbid if you assume an attack is an attack because that might lead you to be attacked. Except that of course that would not be an attack, just an attack.

 

[jaelis]

TIL: If it looks like an attack, sounds like an attack and moves like attack it is not an attack because the text doesn't specifically state it is an attack.

BRB - Dragon breath'ing a few more villages. Cease fire? Truce? Ha! It is was it is - and that's not an attack! It's just well calculate collateral damage! BUUUUUURRRNNN!

Yep, your wit has convinced me!

Actually I just realized how much fun it will be to let my dragons breath fire as opportunity attacks. I can see why you all like the idea.

 

[Arial Black]

So in your game in the rules of 5e...

Fixed it for you.

...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?

AFB ATM, but some magic items say that they allow you to cast a named spell (and using them would pop invisibility), and some just work like a named spell without saying that you cast it (and using those would not pop invisibility).

Unlike 3e, 5e does not have clearly delineated spell/spell-like ability/supernatural ability definitions, which all interact with other game mechanics in different but strictly defined ways. In 5e there are spells...and just...stuff. What 3e would define as a spell-like/supernatural ability, 5e either calls it a spell or...doesn't.

Imagine for a moment that 5e did have those three mechanics. If it did then the invisibility spell would have 'cast a spell' on the list of things that make it pop, but it would also have to mention spell-like abilities in order for them to make it pop, and supernatural abilities in order to make it pop. If either were not on that list then that thing would not pop invisibility.

But, as we know, 5e does not have those three mechanics. In their place there are just two: 'spells', and...er...'not spells'.

All spells do exactly what they say on the tin! Invisibility says it gets popped by 'attacks' (game term) and 'casts a spell' (game term). If the thing in question is not one of those, then it does not pop invisibility, even if (and this is the important part), even if previous editions had a different list of what popped the spell, and even if YOU would have written that list differently if you wrote 5e!

This thread isn't asking about what house rules are out their for popping invisibility, it is asking what the actual, written 5e rules are. It is not asking how you would have written the spell, it is asking about the spell that JC actually wrote.

He wrote that 'casting a spell' pops it, but breath weapons and other magical effects that are not 'casting a spell' are not things that pop it.

He wrote that the spell pops if the target attacks. What does JC mean by 'attack'? "An attack involves an attack roll or doing something that the rules call an attack, like grappling or shoving" is what he means, referring to the rule on p192 of the PHB.

 

[Arial Black]

Let's pretend for a moment that this one particular spell uses words that are game terms, in the part of the spell description where we expect it to tell us how this game rule interacts with other game rules, and really means us not to understand them as game terms but instead as 'natural language'.

Why would anyone write the spell in such a confusing way, when if he really meant it that way he would be careful to avoid using exactly the same words as the game term?

Leaving that aside, if this spell alone out of all the spells in the PHB is trying to fool us this way, it must be pointed out that the text makes no differentiation between 'attacks' and 'casts a spell' in terms of one should be understood as natural language and the other should not! Therefore, either both items are used as game terms, or neither is!

So, if we are to understand 'attacks' to mean 'anything that natural language could conceivably be used to describe that action as an attack', then we must also understand 'casts a spell' to mean 'anything that natural language could conceivably be used to describe that action as casting a spell'.

Great!

Player 1: Oh, no! We are being assaulted by an invisible dragon! Whatever shall we do?

Player 2: Never fear! I have the solution! DM: I FALL IN LOVE WITH THE DRAGON!

DM: ...What?

Player 2: The dragon has indeed cast a spell on me by dint of her majesty, grace and power! I am head over heels in love, even though I can't see her!

DM: Actually, the dragon is male.

Player 2: No matter! I'm not prejudiced! Anyway, long story short, because the dragon 'cast a spell' of love, he loses his invisibility!

Player 1: Good thinking! Thanks, natural language!

Now, you may think that this is all ridiculous. YES IT IS! But if we are to understand this list as natural language rather than game terminology (against reason, I might add!), then it's just as ridiculous for 'attacks' as it is for 'casts a spell'.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I definitely think that it would be worth asking JC about the invisible dragon situation if anyone uses Twitter. It strikes me as an interesting edge case where DM ruling is probably needed over the letter of the rules, but I'd be intrigued to know what he says in response.