Distract drop invisibility?

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sad to read that, because the reason I'm interested in the discussion is because I want to understand the reasons for your position. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that there are no reasons beyond simple preference, but my mind is still open.

For instance:

that's a reason! If you can identify the context difference between OAs and invisibility that leads to your different conclusions, I would be happy.

Try the large explanatory section on melee attacks that define it more clearly, paired with common understanding of the words that aren't looking for a perverse outcome, and you can see it.

For invisibility, it doesn't make any narrative sense to have it break if I throw a rock at you but not if an ancient dragon breaths fire on you. Insisting on sticking to rules regardless of outcome is something I stopped caring about awhile back. I'll gladly discuss how the rules are written (I've done this with Arial a few times, being on both sides of him in those discussions) because I'm interested in rule design and the incentives they create, but when it comes to 'you have to follow this rule regardless of the stupid it causes in game' I'm out.

 

[nswanson27]

Or ... this has never come up in a game I've actually played. As far as I know there are 3 random people on the internet who have an issue with reading "attack" as any attack.

And yes, when faced with obtuse objections and refusal to accept that it's just a different way of interpreting the rules and making a ruling, then the only option is to walk away.

Congratulations! Your stubborn refusal to accept any opinion other than your own has won a gold star!
View attachment 94705

Well I'll try to say it again - I have no problem whatsoever with the way you interpret the rules, and I'm glad that it gels well with your table. But if you claim the way you interpret the rules is the way the designers interpret the rules, then we have a disagreement, for reasons already stated.

 

[jaelis]

Try the large explanatory section on melee attacks that define it more clearly, paired with common understanding of the words that aren't looking for a perverse outcome, and you can see it.

There is a similarly large and IMO even more clear discussion of what an attack is. By "common understanding" though, surely any attack in melee is a melee attack? Anyway why would it be perverse to let a dragon breath fire as an opportunity attack?

For invisibility, it doesn't make any narrative sense to have it break if I throw a rock at you but not if an ancient dragon breaths fire on you.

If you want a narrative explanation:

Invisibility requires that you keep your attention focused on being unseen. When you make a targeted attack against a creature, you have to focus your attention on that creature. If you set of an area effect like dragon breath or a bomb, you don't really have to pay attention to anything. Maybe you are aware there is a creature in the blast area, but you don't have to focus on who it is and what it is doing. That allows you to maintain the invisibility effect.

That works fine for me, and probably better than any narrative explanation I have for why it would pop in response to hostile intent. (Since I guess that breathing fire into empty space would not count as an attack? It's only if there is an enemy in the area? Maybe that you have to be aware of?)

'you have to follow this rule regardless of the stupid it causes in game' I'm out.

It is good then that no one is saying that. I think the discussion is about what the rule says, not whether you have to follow it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is a similarly large and IMO even more clear discussion of what an attack is. By "common understanding" though, surely any attack in melee is a melee attack? Anyway why would it be perverse to let a dragon breath fire as an opportunity attack?


If you want a narrative explanation:

Invisibility requires that you keep your attention focused on being unseen. When you make a targeted attack against a creature, you have to focus your attention on that creature. If you set of an area effect like dragon breath or a bomb, you don't really have to pay attention to anything. Maybe you are aware there is a creature in the blast area, but you don't have to focus on who it is and what it is doing. That allows you to maintain the invisibility effect.

That works fine for me, and probably better than any narrative explanation I have for why it would pop in response to hostile intent. (Since I guess that breathing fire into empty space would not count as an attack? It's only if there is an enemy in the area? Maybe that you have to be aware of?)


It is good then that no one is saying that. I think the discussion is about what the rule says, not whether you have to follow it.

You claim to want understanding, but any rationale given is immediately met with argument. It doesn't really seem like you're seeking understanding.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well I'll try to say it again - I have no problem whatsoever with the way you interpret the rules, and I'm glad that it gels well with your table. But if you claim the way you interpret the rules is the way the designers interpret the rules, then we have a disagreement.

Sorry, what evidence do we have about how ther devs interpret it? Recall the restrictions on Crawford for Sage Advice -- he can't give his personal interpretation, he can only present the rules as written.

 

[nswanson27]

Sorry, what evidence do we have about how ther devs interpret it? Recall the restrictions on Crawford for Sage Advice -- he can't give his personal interpretation, he can only present the rules as written.

Well, you take one method of interpretation, apply it to a rule-in-question, and get a potential rule interpretation. Then do this for more such rules questions. Then, take those and compare to what's on sage advice. If they align well, the you have a pretty good indication that your method of interpreting the rules is at or close to what the designers' is. If not, then you need to either adjust your interpretation so that it does align, or just admit that you're not going to do that because it doesn't work for you (which is perfectly ok).
But again, the overarching question here is if people want to find out what designers interpretation method actually is, and debate that in an objective sense. That's very different then talking how one person simply likes to interpret the rules. I see a mixture of the two on this thread, and this causes a lot of confusion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, you take one method of interpretation, apply it to a rule-in-question, and get a potential rule interpretation. Then do this for more such rules questions. Then, take those and compare to what's on sage advice. If they align well, the you have a pretty good indication that your method of interpreting the rules is at or close to what the designers' is. If not, then you need to either adjust your interpretation so that it does align, or just admit that you're not going to do that because it doesn't work for you (which is perfectly ok).
But again, the overarching question here is if people want to find out what designers interpretation method actually is, and debate that in an objective sense. That's very different about talking about discussion how one person simply likes to interpret the rules. I see a mixture of the two on this thread, and this causes a lot of confusion.

No, you have evidence that you're in line with the narrow and restricted way sage advice presents answers. That's not how the devs would necessarily rule, and there's strong evidence that the devs play in ways that violate sage advice responses.

 

[nswanson27]

No, you have evidence that you're in line with the narrow and restricted way sage advice presents answers. That's not how the devs would necessarily rule, and there's strong evidence that the devs play in ways that violate sage advice responses.

Well, that would be something to consider. Do you have any references from devs that pertains to what's being discussed?
EDIT:

And there is this from from the D&D website on sage advice. They directly advocate sage advice for figuring out RAI, so however you view sage advice, that is what it is, straight from the horses mouth:

...
In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.
Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.
When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
...

So RAI is expounded there.
And if a particular dev likes to play the game differently, sure. But I think they will admit as much that they are deviating from what the intent was when they were designing the game, as they had more to consider than just how they personally like to play D&D.

 

[jaelis]

You claim to want understanding, but any rationale given is immediately met with argument. It doesn't really seem like you're seeking understanding.

You say: melee attacks are described in more detail than regular attacks. I go look at the book, and it doesn't look like they are described in any more detail. So I ask for clarification. Because I still don't understand.

Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

vs

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

- Choose target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

- Determine modifiers. The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

- Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any questions 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.

 

[Oofta]

Well I'll try to say it again - I have no problem whatsoever with the way you interpret the rules, and I'm glad that it gels well with your table. But if you claim the way you interpret the rules is the way the designers interpret the rules, then we have a disagreement, for reasons already stated.

Then let me rephrase. I think it's arrogant to claim that anyone on this thread knows the one and only true way to interpret the rules. I don't have the developers on speed dial and JC's twitter answers basically repeat the rules text with no further clarification. Feel free to tweet him about invisibility and breath weapon and see if you get a response.