Distract drop invisibility?

[nswanson27]

IMHO JC's twitter responses are basically a copy and paste from the rules and add no clarity one way or the other.

No offense, but if there's nothing new to add I'm ignoring future questions and comments.

Ok yeah, if those don't provide anything for you, ... well I guess that's all I got then.

 

[nswanson27]

Sure. Now, try this tweet and see if it affects your thinking at all:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/725744801572769792

Can't say that it does. FYI I wouldn't be surprised if JC did split that out for the dragon breath issue. I would be surprised if he did that for the help action issue. But that's simply me being surprised...
I have been wrong before. And both times, I said I was sorry.

 

[jaelis]

Sure, you know, I've changed my mind out of sheer astonishment at how well you beat that dead horse. Who knew that could actually work? You've won at internets and beaten me, your way is the bestest and most right way and I am humbled in my abject wrongness. Please stop asking me questions about it, I am embarrassed I was so wrongnessbad.

I'm honestly not looking to change your mind here. And if you interpret the rule the way you do just because that is how you want it to work, then there's nothing argue with. You wrote something to suggest there was more to it than that. If there isn't then OK.

But honestly it seems that it makes sense to you that dragon breath counts as an attack for invisibility, but not for OAs. Like you can't fathom why it wouldn't be obvious to me. And that makes me think there is some explainable rational involved, beyond just "that's the way I like to play."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm honestly not looking to change your mind here. And if you interpret the rule the way you do just because that is how you want it to work, then there's nothing argue with. You wrote something to suggest there was more to it than that. If there isn't then OK.

But honestly it seems that it makes sense to you that dragon breath counts as an attack for invisibility, but not for OAs. Like you can't fathom why it wouldn't be obvious to me. And that makes me think there is some explainable rational involved, beyond just "that's the way I like to play."

My badnesswrongbad shames me.

 

[jaelis]

Sure. Now, try this tweet and see if it affects your thinking at all:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/725744801572769792

That is a pretty nice example. If someone posted to ask what the rules say about how witch bolt interacts with sanctuary, what would you say?

And what do you think the rules say if you try the same thing with invisibility instead?

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is a pretty nice example. If someone posted to ask what the rules say about how witch bolt interacts with sanctuary, what would you say?

And what do you think the rules say if you try the same thing with invisibility instead?

I am the wrongs.

 

[Arial Black]

If you are worried that JC would answer a tweet which asked, "Does dragon breath pop invisibility" with simply quoting the rules definition of 'attack' again, and would still be unconvinced because the rules don't say what is not an 'attack' (because the book says what the rules are, and are under no expectation to say what they are not!), then instead ask this question:-

"The book says that if there is any doubt whether something is an 'attack', the rule is simple: it is an 'attack' if it involves an attack roll (or an explicit exception), does this mean that something that has no attack roll and no wording to specifically say that it counts as an 'attack' is not an 'attack'?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you are worried that JC would answer a tweet which asked, "Does dragon breath pop invisibility" with simply quoting the rules definition of 'attack' again, and would still be unconvinced because the rules don't say what is not an 'attack' (because the book says what the rules are, and are under no expectation to say what they are not!), then instead ask this question:-

"The book says that if there is any doubt whether something is an 'attack', the rule is simple: it is an 'attack' if it involves an attack roll (or an explicit exception), does this mean that something that has no attack roll and no wording to specifically say that it counts as an 'attack' is not an 'attack'?

And what did JC say when you asked him your question?

 

[Arial Black]

And what did JC say when you asked him your question?

I'm not on Twitter, and I'm not going to be.

Hence my posting a suggestion for a question which should generate an answer that will be logically inescapable, so that someone who is on Twitter can ask it, for the benefit of us all.