Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MaximusArael020" data-source="post: 7350218" data-attributes="member: 6923864">So, I think the original question was as to whether the &quot;Help&quot; action in combat would remove the invisibility spell.&nbsp; HelpAlternatively, 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.So my question would be, how is the invisible creature distracting the target?&nbsp; They're invisible, so a feint wouldn't work.&nbsp; I wouldn't rule that Helping in combat always leads to a loss of invisibility, but the PC would have to describe what they were doing.&nbsp; If they physically make contact with the target, to try to trip, shove, push off balance, etc, they would roll for an attack (similar to a grapple) and invisibility would end.&nbsp; If they were to wave a poster next to the enemy's head to distract them, then I would say they keep invisibility, but the attacker gets an Attack of Opportunity (with disadvantage) if they move out of the enemy's space.As for things like a Dragon's Breath Weapon, that is harder to decide on.&nbsp; It clearly is not an &quot;Attack&quot; action as outlined by the PHB, nor is it a &quot;Spell&quot;.&nbsp; However, I feel that the intention of this Second Level spell was not to be able to have dragons breathe death upon groups and doing massive damage while remaining invisible.&nbsp; I feel the spell was not designed to allow massive damage to be done while remaining invisible.&nbsp; However, if that is how anyone would rule because of the definition of &quot;Attack&quot; and the wording of the spell, then that's totally fine by me.&nbsp; I understand both sides:&nbsp; one is going for strict interpretation of the rules using definitions in place in the provided material.&nbsp; Very legal-esque.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that.&nbsp; The other side is more trying to make sense of what the spell means to them, and what they feel its intention was.&nbsp; Also nothing wrong with that.&nbsp; Neither side seems likely to convince the other, and they are both valid interpretations, in my humble view.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MaximusArael020, post: 7350218, member: 6923864"] So, I think the original question was as to whether the "Help" action in combat would remove the [I]invisibility[/I] spell. [B]Help[/B] [I]Alternatively, 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.[/I] So my question would be, how is the invisible creature distracting the target? They're invisible, so a [I]feint[/I] wouldn't work. I wouldn't rule that Helping in combat always leads to a loss of invisibility, but the PC would have to describe what they were doing. If they physically make contact with the target, to try to trip, shove, push off balance, etc, they would roll for an attack (similar to a grapple) and invisibility would end. If they were to wave a poster next to the enemy's head to distract them, then I would say they keep invisibility, but the attacker gets an Attack of Opportunity (with disadvantage) if they move out of the enemy's space. As for things like a Dragon's Breath Weapon, that is harder to decide on. It clearly is not an "Attack" action as outlined by the PHB, nor is it a "Spell". However, I feel that the intention of this Second Level spell was not to be able to have dragons breathe death upon groups and doing massive damage while remaining invisible. I feel the spell was not designed to allow massive damage to be done while remaining invisible. However, if that is how anyone would rule because of the definition of "Attack" and the wording of the spell, then that's totally fine by me. I understand both sides: one is going for strict interpretation of the rules using definitions in place in the provided material. Very legal-esque. Nothing wrong with that. The other side is more trying to make sense of what the spell means to them, and what they feel its intention was. Also nothing wrong with that. Neither side seems likely to convince the other, and they are both valid interpretations, in my humble view. [/QUOTE]

Verification