Distract drop invisibility?

[nswanson27]

Personally, I think as far as "how you rule on X", it's worthwhile on an internet forum to simply state what you do and any reasons why you like it (e.g. it makes players stay on their toes, it makes X less boring, etc..). Beyond that, I really it's just a waste of time.
If you want to get into the semantics of what the rules say, that's fine, but please keep those trains of thought separate from your rulings as a DM. Otherwise, you end up confusing people about what you're talking about, and what your goal is.
And for the record, there is RAW, RAI, and a houserule (yes, there is RAF, but that's more anecdotal). The reasoning for a given ruling is in exactly one of those 3 categories. If you care about RAW/RAI (and especially RAI), then you should be prepared for people to call you wrong, defend yourself (and your authority as DM doesn't matter here), and expect sage advice to be the final say in the matter. Endless arguing, but refusing to expose your position to be shown wrong (as far as RAI is concerned) is just clutters up the forum pages with needless bloat, and I honestly don't think convinces anyone of anything - except that you don't like to be wrong.
If it's just a houserule, then just call it a houserule. Simple. Don't try to play it off as something more objective than that (as that just lands into what I wrote above). Nothing wrong with houseruling.
Just remember, the internet forum isn't your D&D table, and people here can disagree with you all they want.

 

[Satyrn]

Danggit. I thought it was an interesting topic, but it turns out it I was just inviting a lecture on how I'm wasting time.

 

[nswanson27]

Danggit. I thought it was an interesting topic, but it turns out it I was just inviting a lecture on how I'm wasting time.

That wasn't directed at you. I was just trying to expound on that point and cut to the chase. The fewer threads that have endless pages of people going back and forth with each other, the better.

 

[jaelis]

Danggit. I thought it was an interesting topic, but it turns out it I was just inviting a lecture on how I'm wasting time.

Dude you're posting on the forum... you already knew that

 

[Oofta]

Reasonable people can, and do disagree all the time*. While I would disagree with someone's ruling that a dragon could attack by breathing fire while remaining invisible, I would accept it for what it is, a ruling.

Some people believe the word "attack" has a game specific definition (similar to "hit points" or "illusion"). In that case an invisible dragon can breath fire all day.

I believe we have game specific rules on how to resolve melee, ranged and spell attacks. Rules on how to implement certain types of attacks does not conflict nor replace the basic definition of an attack as a hostile action intended to do harm. I'm still attacking whether I'm trying to lop your head off with a sword or throwing a grenade.

The problem I have with threads like this is that we can't just explain our positions, agree to disagree and move on. A ruling is not a house rule, it is simply an opinion on how to best interpret the rules.

*Which is not to say that anyone posting to this thread, especially yours truly, is reasonable.

 

[Satyrn]

That wasn't directed at you. I was just trying to expound on that point and cut to the chase. The fewer threads that have endless pages of people going back and forth with each other, the better.

Okay.

But man, it's hard to see how that wasn't directed at me.

 

[Oofta]

Personally, I think as far as "how you rule on X", it's worthwhile on an internet forum to simply state what you do and any reasons why you like it (e.g. it makes players stay on their toes, it makes X less boring, etc..). Beyond that, I really it's just a waste of time.
If you want to get into the semantics of what the rules say, that's fine, but please keep those trains of thought separate from your rulings as a DM. Otherwise, you end up confusing people about what you're talking about, and what your goal is.
And for the record, there is RAW, RAI, and a houserule (yes, there is RAF, but that's more anecdotal). The reasoning for a given ruling is in exactly one of those 3 categories. If you care about RAW/RAI (and especially RAI), then you should be prepared for people to call you wrong, defend yourself (and your authority as DM doesn't matter here), and expect sage advice to be the final say in the matter. Endless arguing, but refusing to expose your position to be shown wrong (as far as RAI is concerned) is just clutters up the forum pages with needless bloat, and I honestly don't think convinces anyone of anything - except that you don't like to be wrong.
If it's just a houserule, then just call it a houserule. Simple. Don't try to play it off as something more objective than that (as that just lands into what I wrote above). Nothing wrong with houseruling.
Just remember, the internet forum isn't your D&D table, and people here can disagree with you all they want.

The problem I have with that is that I have no access to the authors of the rules. I have no clue what they intended barring a Sage Advice column.

So I think throwing around RAW and RAI is pretty meaningless. At the end of the day it's the DM (hopefully along with his players) interpreting the rules the best they can and deciding if they want to override those rules with a house rule.

Of course, you are free to disagree.

 

[nswanson27]

Okay.

But man, it's hard to see how that wasn't directed at me.

Ok, well sorry then - it truly wasn't .

 

[nswanson27]

The problem I have with that is that I have no access to the authors of the rules. I have no clue what they intended barring a Sage Advice column.

So I think throwing around RAW and RAI is pretty meaningless. At the end of the day it's the DM (hopefully along with his players) interpreting the rules the best they can and deciding if they want to override those rules with a house rule.

Of course, you are free to disagree.

Well there has been a couple of sage advice columns offered in this thread dealing with invisibility, and what constitutes an attack, that suggests that using the help action would not break invis according to RAI. It's not the exact scenario of an invis rogue helping in battle but it's pretty close. I haven't seen any other sage advice columns posted that would suggest that it would. So I don't think we really are completely in the dark for what RAI here is. You can always quick get a twitter account and post your exact scenario if you'd like. I'm guessing it's going to take a lot less time than it has debating here.
I agree with the DM deciding at the end of the day.

 

[Oofta]

Well there has been a couple of sage advice columns offered in this thread dealing with invisibility, and what constitutes an attack, that suggests that using the help action would not break invis according to RAI. It's not the exact scenario of an invis rogue helping in battle but it's pretty close. I haven't seen any other sage advice columns posted that would suggest that it would. So I don't think we really are completely in the dark for what RAI here is. You can always quick get a twitter account and post your exact scenario if you'd like. I'm guessing it's going to take a lot less time than it has debating here.
I agree with the DM deciding at the end of the day.

I'm perfectly OK with my ruling (or playing at a table with someone that rules differently). All of my players have been OK with my ruling. It's other people that seem to have conniptions. If you want to twee feel free. Besides, I think twitter is the spawn of Satan.

As far as RAI ... if you can give a direct quote feel free. The sage advice compendium says nothing. I know I've linked to things that talk about how 5E is intentionally not written in gamer speak and that they were going for more relaxed ruleset using common language. It was ignored as irrelevant, of course.

A vague "there's been things said that prove RAI" means nothing.