Distract drop invisibility?

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I never made an argument that the rules can'y contain game specific terms. I said, quite clearly, that making the decision to introduce weirdness into your game in a effort to follow a narrow interpretation of rules is not something I would stick around for.

Demanding that others explain to you why they don't play your way and then becoming upset when they do also seems like something I'm not all that interested in sticking around for, either.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

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.

Here's the pertinent part of the Help action per the PH...

...you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

No where does it intimate that the Help action is in any way an attack. Officially, it's aiding a friend with a feint, a distraction or the like. It only provides advantage for one of an ally's attacks. It bestows no damage or conditions on an enemy target. Therefore it is not an attack or action that would effect invisibility. Nothing about invisibility says you need to have peaceful intentions, after all.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

TLR...so this will be very short.

Does distracting, as in for the help action, drop invisibility (from the distracter) ? Reminder the spell mention

and AL is RAW.

I've learned to develop a "players intention" lens when DM'ing. What is the PLAYERS intention for doing something? If it's "because it seems cool" or "because the PC would do/not do this"...then I'm more lenient. If it's "because it's a loophole I can use to win/game-the-system/cheat"...then I bring down the Adamantine Hammer +5 of Shenanigan Slaying.

Believe it or not, it was that actual spell (Invisibility) that made me first start to do this waaaaay back in 1e days (probably around 1985 or so...I was still a neophyte DM with not even a half-dozen years under my belt at that time).

In 5e, I take the same approach. "You're opening the door for him so he can enter all spooky like? Ok. You stay invisible"... vs ..."You're opening the door for him so he can blast them with chain lightning? Ok. You're visible". Is this 'fair'? Yes...because I'm consistent. My players can usually determine if any particular action would result in becoming visible. That said, I tell them before they do the action...just so they know for sure.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here's the pertinent part of the Help action per the PH...

...you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage.

No where does it intimate that the Help action is in any way an attack. Officially, it's aiding a friend with a feint, a distraction or the like. It only provides advantage for one of an ally's attacks. It bestows no damage or conditions on an enemy target. Therefore it is not an attack or action that would effect invisibility. Nothing about invisibility says you need to have peaceful intentions, after all.

That first sentence of your quote looks suspicious, don't you think?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

No, I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with your ruling. I'm claiming that the way in which you are reading the rules isn't the one the designers intended. If you don't care, then that fine, but let's stop with bringing the podcasts and articles, and other such references pointing to RAI, into the discussion, because that's not what this is really about.
However, if you are claiming that your ruling is RAI, then I am claiming you are not hearing their intent correctly in those podcasts.
Don't agree? Put it on sage advice and settle this like it ought to be.
Don't want to? Fine, but then I call shenanigans on your apparent unwillingness to discuss this properly, because that's what this is all implying then.

If you want to know the designer's intent or how they would rule it, ask Mearls.
Crawford is there to answer questions by the letter of the rules only, and states as much.

Grapples and shoves are called out as attacks.

They're referred to as special melee attacks in the text and can be part of an attack action, but they're not making an attack roll.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

That first sentence of your quote looks suspicious, don't you think?

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.

 

[jaelis]

They're referred to as special melee attacks in the text and can be part of an attack action, but they're not making an attack roll.

That is correct. They do not involve attack rolls but they are called out as attacks, so they are attacks. At least that's how I would rule. In regards to the "attacks involve attack rolls" line, IMO that is what the "if there is any question part" is referring to, but otherwise they would just be a case of specific beats general.

The fighter's sweeping attack maneuver is another special case, it says you attack the second target even though you don't make a separate attack roll against it.

 

[Satyrn]

In basketball a player who assists on a FG doesn't get credit for the basket, after all.

But they do give out assists in hockey. Wayne Gretzky got a lot of credit for that.

 

[jaelis]

But they do give out assists in hockey. Wayne Gretzky got a lot of credit for that.

They keep track of assists in basketball too, but in neither case do they count them as goals.

 

[jaelis]

Demanding that others explain to you why they don't play your way and then becoming upset when they do also seems like something I'm not all that interested in sticking around for, either.

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.